OpenStreetMap
James Derrick's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 99834494 | Hi DaveF, Thanks for your reply. Open Street Map is a project created by a community, not just individuals. As a community we work collaboratively to improve the overall map, and an important part of this is both limited changesets and useful descriptive comments. A change set spanning from Cornwall to Northumberland makes it difficult for others to see what you have changed, and although it may be within one country, this makes you changes hard to track. Please upload your changes *before* you move to a new area. This change set discussion centres on contributions to the overall map, rather than to validation software. I presume your point is related to if **landuse**=recreation_ground and/or **leisure**=recreation ground is most relevent in this instance? You might see a lot of leisure=pitch as it came from a 2016 UK OSM quartly project guide*, but recreation_ground is much a better description. Based on both the wiki**, and TagInfo, I believe landuse=recreation_ground is the reccomended tag, but left both.
It is a key principle of OpenStreetMap's free tagging system that unlimited tags are allowed. A useful method to model landuse is to first define the boundary (e.g. barrier=fence), then align landuse areas on all sides with this way (no including highway ways). This gives a precise boundary with neither gaps nor overlap. Although badly explained in my comment, that's what I meant by 'align the way to existing natural boundaries'. Your current modelling leaves gaps and overlap around the school boundaries, which I suggest can and should be improved. My understanding is that areas such as car parking, public grass, and even schools are part of landuse=residential. Your edit suggests you may disagree - can I ask what your thoughts are here please as understanding then would help me edit with you? Can I ask your thoughts as to why split an island 14x semi-detached houses, when the main area connects across Front Street please? Is it better to split the areas across Front Street? This approach has created several 'islands' of Guidepost where one landuse=residential area existed before all of which are seperately named, e.g.:
Although to me complex for a contiguous residential area, going with it, how about a place relation linking the 'islands' to the central place=village tag, moving the name up a level to:
You seem to have deliverately mapped around areas such as Ashington Mews, making a complex island at the NW corner of Cleasewell Hill School (to avoid a multipolygon relation?)
These islands also don't align to natural boundaries with overlap and gaps, which to me needs more work - e.g. :
I can assist, but would like to understand your thoughts behind the changeset first. As for the name - friends who live there use both Guide Post and Guidepost. I originally went with one word, as that's what they suggested, however as the sign at the Western boundary says 'GUIDE POST', so perhaps name='Guide Post' alt_name='Guidepost'. Thanks for reading this detailed discussion, and happy mapping, James |
|
| 99834494 | Hi Dave, Firstly, can I ask why this changeset ranges from NE England to Cornwall?
Secondly, you have split a landuse=residential area in Stakeford Northumberland into two (breaking the way and landuse), and added barrier=wall to the Eastern section, effectively walling in several thousand residents! West section:
Unfortunately, the new area (well, as-is it is a way) you have created does not align with existing boundaries - such as walls, property boundaries, and the clear fence of Cleasewell Hill School:
I also note you have removed my deliberate tagging of the school recreation grounds, deleting a tag with over double the usage in the UK:
As this changeset was 2 months ago, and covers almost the whole of the UK, a revert would seem challenging. Can I ask you to restore the Stakeford landuse (without the barrier-wall across A roads), restore laduse=recreation_grounds tagging, and align the way to existing natural boundaries please? Thanks and Happy Mapping, James |
|
| 100055837 | Hi jimstn,
When we are able to get out more, I can add the site it to my Blyth cycle survey route to see if there's any names (Portland, Crofton, Crawford, etc).
James |
|
| 95739211 | Hi jimstn,
It looks like you may have had an editing issue splitting the way to create relations for the Town Council 'Tubeway Map', and created a new stub way as highway=tertiary:
Can I suggest retagging this stub as highway=service?
James |
|
| 92564743 | Hi GinaroZ,
The wiki for leisure=golf_course has come a long way since I last looked - golf=bunker is a lot better than natural=beach!
That update alone looks worthwhile across several local courses (Arcot Hall, Bedlington, Blyth, race course, etc). Happy Mapping, James |
|
| 74223633 | Hi again,
tarmac (0.02%) is usually expressed as asphalt (52%), and tartan is even less common (0.01%). Must just be we few using JOSM preset templates! Ta for checking! James |
|
| 74223633 | Hi jambamkin,
Can I suggest consulting the OSM wiki or taginfo if there's a tag value you don't recognise? It can be a surprisingly useful way to expand your mapping vocabulary:
PS Did you know adding the surface=* tag to highway=footway is useful for routers, and the default Mapnik renderer changes the 'strength' of the red line accordingly?
Happy Mapping, James |
|
| 90968241 | Hi Jez,
[out:json][timeout:25];
|
|
| 90968241 | Hi Jez,
Thanks for the reminder to fix the bodge of both UPRN and USRN tags on highway=*. Are you using a validation tool please?
Happy Mapping, James |
|
| 91410964 | Hi wellasus, Thanks for the fix - I've fat-fingered changes myself, so Happy Mapping! James |
|
| 92297264 | Map update with additional detail:
Happy Mapping... |
|
| 91410964 | Hi wellasus, In this changeset you turned the whole of the Broomhill residential area into a motorway services area. This is doubly odd as there are no significant trunk roads nor motorways nearby. This is clearly wrong - I live nearby and have surveyed the ground truth many times. Please revert this change as soon as possible. Happy Mapping, James |
|
| 91208863 | Hi GinaroZ, Given the closure duration is over a year, I've got to agree. When it re-opens it will need a re-survey anyway as both access roads are being remodelled with parking. Adding both closure tags now! Happy Mapping, James |
|
| 91687875 | Hi Nora, With the exception of CMP Products (which has undergone some recent expansion), these units are different business from neighbours, so after adding detailed barrier=* and natural=scrub to separate the sites after a ground survey, the effort to split up and re-align a man_made=works area felt too much, so I'm afraid I took the easy way out and hit delete. :-( * This area is set of mixed use industrial estates, and the units aren't car production plants nor oil refineries so the single tag man_made=works seemed a bad fit. Most units are SME (car repair, double glazing installers, printers, building material distributor, etc) and the wider area is already marked as landuse=industrial. * IMHO, the area added no information to the map - the man_made=works didn't include a name=*, or other additional information like product=*. * The areas were only loosely aligned with the outline of individual premises, didn't align with existing fence lines and certainly not with the ground truth. Personally, I've only seen man_made=works used on single large buildings , or single occupant sites rather than as an extra overlay on top of large parts of an already mapped mixed industrial estate. What additional meaning are you looking to convey please? |
|
| 65400408 | This tagging practice is expressly _not_ one I use for exactly the reasons you cite. Please check the object history before pointing fingers. As point of fact, I have been replacing highway=* area=yes with individual road lines. I suggest you read this note:
|
|
| 81491700 | Hi Jesspher, There are several out of copyright map sources that variously call this farmstead Cockplay, or West Cockplay. NLS - Bartholomew Half Inch, 1897-1907
Looking again at the range of names, the newer sources suggest:
Happy Mapping, James |
|
| 86072004 | Hi GinaroZ, Darn - Apologies, I didn't spot the landuse _didn't_ actually have a shop=supermarket tag on it! Some errors hide in dark corners - thanks for another set of eyes to validate my edit! Happy Mapping, James |
|
| 86072004 | Hi GinaroZ, As the whole site is operated by Morrisons, including the car park and loading areas, I've tagged the entire site way as landuse=retail, shop=supermarket, name=* rather than a node. The same principle applies to nearby schools, The Amble Inn (just noticed better Bing / Maxar imagery to improve it...), etc. If the building were sub-divided into several individual outlets, then I'd agree, but that's not what I saw, albeit driving past... Happy Mapping, James |
|
| 87067280 | Hi Thomas, I made the change from highway=construction; construction=trunk to highway=trunk; access=no as several sources of imagery suggest the 'ground truth' is construction of this section is complete, but obviously not connected and not open to traffic. Using imagery for 'armchair edits' always risks being out of date with the ground truth, however I'd suggest that highway = construction is no longer correct for this section. This approach has the advantage of showing progress on the ground, without creating a routable way. The downside is that highway=trunk is rendered with much more emphasis than construction, even with access=no - but we all try not to tag for the renderer :) The junction tags on the A1 for Spittlegate Junction did make me think, as the junction doesn't seem to physically exist. A lifecycle prefix like 'planned:' isn't widely used, and didn't want to risk breaking carefully curated information. Being remote from the 'ground truth' I won't be offended it you wish to re-tag to better match what is really going on, but hope my logic makes sense. All the best and Happy Mapping, James |
|
| 85208063 | Hi falkirk81, Just wanted to say thanks for your good work in Morpeth Southfields with a recent GPSr trace and adding the new phase to the East. In the JOSM editor there are extra sources of aerial imagery which can help interpret road junctions, so using recent Maxar imagery I've tried to smooth out Bowyer Way and added what looks like groundworks for new roads. The hard bit is GPSr and imagery data never quite align, so some 'averaging by eye' is needed until more traces are available. Hope the result fits with your ground survey - I've not managed to cycle over and survey Morpeth for a while. All the best, James |