trigpoint's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 102537962 | almost 5 years ago | In this change you have duplicated many roads with secondary, this is very damaging and I am reverting this edit. |
| 102523966 | almost 5 years ago | Hi, in this edit you seem to have created a very small duplicate hospital.
Cheers Phil |
| 102488198 | almost 5 years ago | Hi, thank you for your edit. In OSM we should not copy from third-party plans without explicit permission. The gold standard in OSM is to simply go and have a look and map what you have seen and use source=survey. Cheers Phil |
| 102440180 | almost 5 years ago | Just wondering why you added a motorway here? |
| 102458219 | almost 5 years ago | Bore da
Diolch Phil |
| 102233276 | almost 5 years ago | Hi
Please do not add descriptions to the name tag. See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things Cheers Phil |
| 101181262 | almost 5 years ago | This route is a legally a bridleway. Have added appropriate access tags, setting the middle track section to private for motor vehicles which will prevent motor vehicles from being routed that way whilst maintaining access for foot/bikes/horses and farm vehicles Cheers Phil |
| 102179815 | almost 5 years ago | Why have you removed the traffice islands here? One of your colleagues vandalised this area two days ago, and has yet to respond to my comments. I am reverting this again as it was correct. Cheers Phil |
| 102051491 | almost 5 years ago | You also broke the transition point between the 40 mph and 50 mph zones which is clear if you select the best imagery. |
| 102051491 | almost 5 years ago | Hi, this edit is very very wrong. Queensway is not a dual carriageway, there are just some small islands either side of the traffic lights. Roads should only be mapped as separate ways where there is physical separation. I am reverting this edit. |
| 101564659 | almost 5 years ago | Legally a bridleway so motor_vehicle=private and added access tags for foot/horses and bikes |
| 101920017 | almost 5 years ago | The track you have photos of is probably Turners Lane. This section is legally a public footpath and therefore should not be used by motor vehicles, that is not to mention the geography of the area. Turners Lane is diagonal for a reason. |
| 101181262 | almost 5 years ago | Who are you working for? Please read a conform to https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines before making further changes to the map. Tagging in osm is about what is legal, not what is safe or possible for vans. This track is used by agricultural vehicles and is legal for horses and cyclists. Adding a tracktype will indicate to a router if it is suitable for a particular type of vehicle. |
| 101660986 | almost 5 years ago | Then the motor_vehicle=no is redundant. |
| 101920017 | almost 5 years ago | What is DA? Cheers Phil |
| 101181262 | almost 5 years ago | I have changed this to a track, it is certainly not a footpath and it is certainly usable by farm vehicles. The edit history suggests it may be used by Amazon vans. Cheers Phil |
| 101660986 | almost 5 years ago | Hi, a oneway street on which there is a node prohibiting motor vehicles seems a bit odd. Are you sure? Cheers Phil |
| 101919793 | almost 5 years ago | Leads to a farm, so service |
| 101920017 | almost 5 years ago | Restored footpath, certainly not a track |
| 70980491 | almost 5 years ago | However amenity=yes is totally meaningless, although that was fixed by a maproulette challenge and if the polygon was incorrect then most mappers would spend a few minutes fixing it rather than doing the bare minimum Cheers Phil |