Hi Thomas,

I dont suppose you walked Claypole FP 3 in doing these changes? If you did was there any evidence of Newark Model Flying Club? I've I've just mapped this because of discussion on talk-gb because I know someone who is a member.

Jerry

Many thanks for doing this, presumably a massive improvement for all concerned (six stiles is a lot!).

I'll now add the footpath reference from the official order (https://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/media/3766033/sb-confirmed-order.pdf) to make it easier to pick out why this changed.

Best wishes,

Jerry aka SK53

Hi John,

I see you added a post box outside Costcutter, but used a slightly different tag than is usual. I think, but am not sure, that "letter box" is used for post deliveries & "post box" for Royal Mail ones.

I was going to change it, but just thought I'd check on my interpretation.

IN the original changeset you note it's on a stick and has an Elizabeth II cypher. We are nerdish enough to have tags for these (although the first is not directly supported in the editors: post_box:type=lamp and royal_cypher=EIIR.

Other things on postboxes (which may be irrelevant unless one is really into chasing them down) include precise times for the collection & the reference usually of the form SM5 ###[D} with boxes numbered sequentially within a postcode district. The early collection ones have a "D" afterwards.

Best wishes,

Jerry aka SK53

Accidentally used, old changeset description. This was adding the house Afallon on S side of river. It was the former minister's house (on older maps called Blaen-Dyffryn), but Afallon on the post-WWII 1:10560, which is it's current name & the name when my mother lived there 1941-4 (ish).

Yeah, I actually surveyed this one! I think the Blue Bell always had two addresses. Certainly it had doors at both ends the only time I drank there, seemed a pleasant boozer back then.

Some FHRS Ids do tend to be zombies.

I presume the situation here is not dissimilar to the one I mentioned in my diary entry @SK53/diary/397290 (also inspired by Robin's tweets). In my situation I presume the big bollards are there to stop cars using the pavement to circumvent the cycle gutter/deterrent paving combo of the fire path.

Multiple barriers designed to impede various kinds of vehicles can be mapped individually, or as a line, but most likely will not be picked up by routing engines. I have used a bollard:count=n to at least represent such situations whilst ensuring there is a barrier tag on the way.

It would be interesting to hear from CycleStreets on this type of issue.

Also in a few places I have mapped the connecting pavements in such LTN nodes.

Unfortunately shop=kiosk does not have that meaning in OSM. Kiosk is widely used in Central & Eastern Europe to refer to what we would call newsagents. I happened to write a blog post about the issue http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2013/09/mapping-kiosks-exploration-of-some.html. Thus coffee kiosks, burger kiosks, ticket kiosks etc need a different tag.

Is FCB on Woking Station really a newsagent (shop=kiosk)? I think it's a place selling hot drinks to take out with some snacks, so should be tagged cafe as originally. You can use kiosk=yes to indicate that the it is a kiosk rather than a walk in shop

Why did you change the name from འབྲུག་ཡུལ་ to Bhutan. The former is a) the correct name for the country for local people; and b) has been the form of the name tag since October 2009. I would expect discussion before changing the name of a country on OSM.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108455082

Presumably the construction=bus_stop is long finished.

No I won't do that: edits twiddling things like source tags give the spurious impression that the area has been updated. I would imagine a heck of a lot has changed in Port-au-Prince in the past 11 years.

I'm just trying to get a handle on rumours of these data being suspicious, and obviously part of the problem is that many are unaware of this episode in OSM's past.

Hi mapman44,

I see that you removed source=Google 2010-01-17 etc from several thousand ways. This was unnecessary: the ways were legitimately entered from a specific aerial imagery flown on that date for earthquake damage assessment. This was the one & only time that OSM has used google sources.

Removing the tag actually takes away a little bit of OSM history: when first responders wanted the data in OSM enough to persuade Google to allow it.

Jerry aka SK53

Hi mmccnn,

No doubt people are thinking this can be used willy-nilly. I'm afraid people regard the presence of something on a map as giving them the right to use it, even though this has never been the case.

In practice the best way to deal with such issues is to improve the data (a car park can be set with access=private or access=customers : which may sound odd, but would be the appropriate information related to worshippers or people pay respects in the graveyard). I see that the church ceased being used for worship and may now be converted to residential use, so private is more likely.

The reason why it pays to add extra info is that someone may come along at a later time and assume the area was never mapped, and then we'd be back to where we started.

It would also help to know a little more about the current status of the churchyard, what little I see on the internet suggests its under local authority care. Is it accessible to passers-by or also private now?

One last thing. Amazon make extensive use of OpenStreetMap in rural areas for guiding delivery drivers to the right place. Amazon employees may also update things like driveways & parking areas, and may not be aware of local nuances.

We're keen to make sure OpenStreetMap data works for everyone (locals, delivery people, visitors, drivers, walkers, first responders etc.). Usually enhancing the overall information is the best way to do it.

Regards,

Jerry aka SK53

Now removed & replaced by turn:lanes:forward=left|through|through which better reflects actual geometry on the ground (and resolves the crossing error)

I took a short Mapillary sequence travelling W-E https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ouIIH13BCj03WBpzLP378c. I've also checked signage from other direction. I now believe that the shared-path sign is a warning that NCN6 is just ahead: 1) the pole is co-incident with the tactile paving strip; 2) there is no share-path roundel on the other side of the pole; 3) no cycle route signage pointing to the University approaching the toucan from the N. I therefore think this is not a share use segment, although travelling W-bound it is very likely to be used as such.

I have a feeling that the original University<->Jubilee went along Charnock Avenue to the Sutton Passeys crossing & thence along the W side of Middleton Boulevard, but the paths from the end of Charnock are scarcely used by cyclists now.

I'll do a bit more sleuthing for signage on this side of the QMC roundabout (& collect Mapillary traces too).

Yes, there back last summer on Mapillary https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.946945&lng=-1.1854080555555555&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=z9nTr677JZa0Gi51waMgo6&x=0.37487418535363703&y=0.44199733048049994&zoom=2

Wow, looks very likely. I'll check in the morning if not before. It looks as though this replaced a cycle in the bus lane sign https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.947008609965295&lng=-1.1853297800135745&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=HMSMG9VuqD5jfMRgUj2yFg.

Hi Kev,

way/867976441 is not a dual use cycle path and should not be marked as such, even if people use it as one. It is a route pinch point and results in significant conflict between cyclists (electric scooter users too) and pedestrians (and very specifically my Dad, who cant hear cyclists & is at risk of falling every time they zoom past). There are even pinch points on the pavement themselves: not just the bus stop, but the corner of the lodge has a huge CCTV camera base which restricts minimum width to around 1.2 m. I think the route should follow Derby Road itself (probably best to just delete this way & check that sidewalk tags exist on Derby Road).

Cheers,

Jerry

Sounds like Andy did pretty much the same. Richard has suggested using motor_vehicle=discouraged to capture the info from your original note.

When I first looked at this I hadn't appreciated that the stream was the one through Ashbourne. This must be on the cusp of being a river in OSM terms.

Firefishy has changed the access on the ford. I dont know if you know any more. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-57335740