OpenStreetMap
SomeoneElse's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 34495446 | If there's a sign on the road saying "Rode Hill" then the name _should_ be "Rode Hill" rather than "Road Hill". Councils get road names wrong more often than you might think. These are often marked in OpenStreetMap as "not:name" - there are about 12,000 in the UK currently http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk /keys/not%3Aname , and a few already near Bath: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/bWy |
|
| 34485363 | The most-used bridge tags in the UK are http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=bridge , so for bridge references bridge_ref wins by some margin currently (and it's already tagged as that). I wouldn't duplicate it into the name tag as that's just duplicating information. If a map style wants to show bridge ref it's easy for it do do so. |
|
| 33727115 | @fsbrace - OpenStreetMap is for things that exist in the real world. Please don't add imaginery things here. If you'd like to update an imaginery map, then OpenGeoFiction may be for you - but have a read of http://opengeofiction.net/wiki/index.php/OGF:Frequently_asked_questions first. |
|
| 24266361 | I'm assuming that way/292975700 wasn't the result of survey and was just a bridge added to make a QA site error go away. I've moved it to a more likely location based on Bing imagery and OS_OpenData_StreetView |
|
| 22075446 | Hello, I think that something's gone a bit wrong with the tagging of way/278742748/history . Currently it has "yes=no". I'm guessing that perhaps that happened when trying to change "tiger:reviewed=no" to "tiger:reviewed=yes"? |
|
| 25750455 | way/19669693 is another nearby one, for info. |
|
| 25750455 | Hello, I think that something's gone a bit wrong with the tagging of way/19572251/history . Currently it has "yes=no". I'm guessing that perhaps that happened when changing "tiger:reviewed=no" to "tiger:reviewed=yes"? |
|
| 33694964 | I think that something's gone a bit wrong with the tagging of way/13248367/history . Currently it has "yes=no". I'm guessing that perhaps that happened when trying to change tiger:reviewed=no" to tiger:reviewed=yes"? Also way/13248341 has the same tag. |
|
| 28960643 | .. and another one, way/292931941/history in changeset/28493125 - I'm guessing perhaps "tiger:reviewed=yes"? |
|
| 28960643 | Hello, I think that something's gone a bit wrong with the tagging of way/10561833/history . Currently it has "yes=no". I'm guessing that perhaps it should be some other access mode = "no" or removed? |
|
| 26478185 | Hello, I think that something's gone a bit wrong with the tagging of way/150227745/history . Currently it has "yes=no". I'm guessing that perhaps it should be some other access mode = "no" (or just removed)? |
|
| 22306152 | Hello, I think that something's gone a bit wrong with the tagging of way/281486546/history . Currently it has "yes=no". I'm guessing that perhaps it should be some other access mode = "no" (or is just something that can be removed)? |
|
| 34326155 | @apcroads some of the roads imported here are still present and problematical. For example, is the name of
I'd suggest reverting this and other similar changesets (such as changeset/34111877 ) and waiting until after discussion before import. The USA has been subject to a number of poor imports previously, please let's not make it any worse. |
|
| 13819560 | If a path or track exists on the ground, I'd map it as e.g. "highway=track". If a name exists on the ground I'd map that as "name=blah". If a route's signed on the ground I'd create a route relation for it. If a forestry track exists on the ground but has no name I'd add it to OSM with no name, and if there's a signed route running over it I'd add it to that route. |
|
| 13819560 | If it's not signed on the ground it doesn't belong in OSM then (although of course OSM data would be ideal to use to create a map for it using something like uMap, of course). |
|
| 13819560 | Is the "South Wales Traverse" signed anywhere? I've never seen any signs on the ground for it. |
|
| 34491510 | Hi ClaudDadur, node/3776562007/history clearly didn't exist in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. What's the source for the rest of these nodes? Best Regards,
|
|
| 34428457 | @LeTopographeFou - are you going to correct the errors that you've introduced in this changeset (as identified by didier2020 ) or do you need help doing so? Please also do reply to the changeset discussion on changeset/34479372 .
|
|
| 34448963 | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Just noticed this edit down the road from me - it looks like node/3773308357 is a duplicate of the already existing way/327148859/history . There should only be one thing in OSM for each thing in the real world - see osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element . Also, you removed the "amenity=post_depot" tag. Was that deliberate? If this isn't an "amenity=post_depot", what actually is it? Also I suspect that the two driveways connecting Interlink to Venture Crescent aren't actually called "Driveway". If they're driveways that have no name, you don't need to make one up for OSM. See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only for more details. I'd be very surprised if way/373898970/history is a public road ("unclassified"), given that the roads connecting to it don't look like unclassified roads from Wimsey Way.
|
|
| 34368161 | Hello RFaith, welcome to OpenStreetMap!
|