tomhukins's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 143311600 | about 1 year ago | Thank you for helping to improve the map. I notice you tagged this node as "highway=crossing", but I have never noticed any formal crossing here. People can cross the road here just as easily at other points. Do you remember why you tagged this specific point as a crossing? |
| 126713289 | about 1 year ago | It is possible, but I walked here recently and the path was flat. We need to map things that exist in the real world, and I see no evidence that the embankment you have mapped intersecting this path exists on the ground. |
| 137738324 | about 1 year ago | Thank you for all your helpful work on the map. The name "Byway Open To All Traffic" looks like a description not a name: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only I suspect these tracks would be tagged better without a name using designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic instead. What do you think? |
| 130839071 | over 1 year ago | Thank you for improving the map - I have deleted the bar you modified as it seems very likely a mistake. Please let me know if I made a mistake and I'll add it back: node/4584150566/history |
| 129065259 | over 1 year ago | The name "School Grounds" on way/101356687 looks like a description rather than a name: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only |
| 153026780 | over 1 year ago | I have amended this in changeset/154903189 - I hope I used suitable tags. |
| 153026780 | over 1 year ago | Thank you for adding things to OpenStreetMap. Your changeset comment suggests this is a pillbox, in which case bunker_type=pillbox might be more suitable than tagging this as a castle fortress. What do you think? |
| 133123713 | over 1 year ago | Thank you for all your useful work on OpenStreetMap. It would be helpful to state whether these toilets are inside Tesco or Marks & Spencer, perhaps using the operator= tag. Currently it's unclear. |
| 147741074 | almost 2 years ago | Thank you for your quick, helpful reply. I have deleted the name in changeset/148241513. Also, thank you again for improving the map: it's always good to see mistakes fixed. |
| 147741074 | almost 2 years ago | Thank you for helping to improve OpenStreetMap. We use "name" for the name of a street, not it's description. I suspect the road at way/281100859 doesn't have the name "Unadopted Road", so it shouldn't have a "name", but I want to check with you as you likely have better local knowledge. Is it possible for pedestrians or other non-vehicle traffic to reach Roughtown Court along this road? |
| 117296939 | almost 2 years ago | Thank you for your helpful work mapping the Derwent Aqueduct. The name "Syphon Outlet" in way/203987332 looks like a description not a name: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only |
| 144099737 | about 2 years ago | Thank you for improving the map. I notice you have added a lot of postcodes in this edit. What are you using as your source for these? Unfortunately, UK postcodes are not open data, as described at osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom#Other_schemas_and_standards and we need to avoid adding copyrighted information to the map. |
| 143735201 | about 2 years ago | Thank you for all your good work on OpenStreetMap. This change adds a name of "Central Retail Park (demolished)" to way/262183470 but I doubt "demolished" is or was part of its name: it's a description of its status. The principles of "Name is the name only" described at osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only and the Lifecycle prefix described at osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix describe why "demolished" doesn't belong in the name in more detail. |
| 122010256 | about 2 years ago | Thank you for your improvements to OpenStreetMap. This change adds a cape, but another node with the same wikidata tag at node/6572722269 - it seems wrong to have two of them but I'm unsure which is correct. |
| 136229307 | about 2 years ago | Thank you for your improvements to OpenStreetMap. This change adds the name "Mull of Kintyre" to node/9798021785 but there's already a "Mull of Kintyre" with the same wikidata tag at node/6572722269 - it seems wrong to have two of them but I'm unsure which is correct. |
| 142619131 | about 2 years ago | Thank you for confirming. I've updated its tags in changeset/142966491 and moved it closer to the road outside the boundaries of the heath. |
| 142619131 | about 2 years ago | The "highway=rest_area" seems wrong to me. Aerial photography looks like more of an "amenity=parking", "parking=layby" where you wouldn't expect to find toilets. Does this seem reasonable? |
| 141772857 | about 2 years ago | I've fixed these and others nearby in changeset/142106296 |
| 141772857 | about 2 years ago | As ever, thank you for your helpful work to improve the map. You have tagged these four new buildings with building=terrace, which is the tag for a row of terraced houses, not an individual terraced house: building=terrace It makes more sense to use building=house and house=terrraced here. |
| 126713289 | over 2 years ago | This change adds an embankment at way/1098380785 that goes straight through an existing cycle path at way/669688779 - it seems unlikely that this is correct so I have created a note at note/3865001 |