OpenStreetMap
rskedgell's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 150761183 | Welcome to OpenStreetMap. As Cody Road and the raising bollards near the roundabout already have access=permissive, there shouldn't be a problem here. It might be more appropriate to file a bug report with the game developer. If that doesn't work, you could ask for help on the OSM Community Forum.
Adding motor_vehicle=yes is problematic, as an access value of yes implies that there is a legal right of way here, which isn't the case. I've updated the access tagging through the gated Prologis Park section and added tagging to show that it's privately owned/operated.
|
|
| 150713800 | Could you check the Facebook URL for Kambi's? I think you may have accidentally pasted in your OSM user name. |
|
| 150540700 | You appear to have tagged a section of High Street as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?" I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists and have therefore reverted your edit. The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled. Non-extent restrictions removed in
|
|
| 146837597 | Welcome to OpenStreetMap. The building tag should only be applied to the outlines of actual buildings, not the entire parcel of land.
The layer=-1 tag tells routers and renderers that features are at different levels.
The historic=manor tag is probably better applied to the building itself (in this case, the Grade I listed Fairlawne), not the grounds.
As Fiarlawne is presumably still a private residence, rather than a building operated by National Trust, English Heritage, etc., the original tagging of the surrounding area as landuse=residential was probably correct. The formal gardens within the estate could be added as leisure=garden + access=private if you wanted more detail than just a pale grey area.
If you would like any help with this, please feel free to ask. |
|
| 150629847 | Rather than deleting the end segment of Palmers Drive, it would have been better to split the way and tag it appropriately. In this case, it would probably be highway=service + service=driveway + access=private. If there is a gate, you could add it as a node tagged with barrier=gate + access=private. You may find this page on the wiki useful to explain the rationale for not deleting private features.
|
|
| 150516631 | Thanks for updating these. As you asked for a review, I would suggest that rather than adding disused:shop=yes as a new tag, you add the disused: lifecycle prefix to the existing shop or amenity tag. The documentation on lifecycle prefixes is on the wiki here:
|
|
| 150484093 | Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding these speed limits. In addition to the maxspeed=60 mph tag, as there is a national speed limit sign, you could also add maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single
It's not essential to add it and your tagging is fine as it is, but some data consumers may find the extra tag useful. |
|
| 150392876 | Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Please try to keep your edits to a smaller geographical area and use a more meaningful changeset comment. You may find the documentation linked below helpful.
Changing highway=footway to highway=path does not "correct" anything, it simply makes access more ambiguous. Please read:
I have restored the original tagging on these paths in changeset/150395654 You may wish to gain a little more experience before deciding, on your first edit, that all the other mappers who edited the footpaths in Nonsuch Park tagged them incorrectly. |
|
| 150319778 | Building outlines reinstated in changeset/150390234 |
|
| 150356653 | For some reason, you added a layer=1 tag to part of Chichester Mews. If you don't know what a tag means, as is obviously the case here, don't add it. You also dragged part of Chichester Mews onto the corner of a house on Thurlby Road. Repaired in changeset/150382725 You have also added badly traced houses on Broxholm Road and Glennie Road. Drawing terraced houses as if they were rather wonky detached houses is of questionable utility, but I have left these untouched. Someone else will eventually have to waste their time re-drawing them. |
|
| 150356971 | You didn't just add some more badly-traced buildings. Yet again, you dragged part of a highway a long way out of alignment, across other roads and through buildings. OSM data consumers actually use the mapped highway network for routing. Badly drawn building=yes polygons just make the map look full, but will not be much use until someone else re-traces them accurately, adds the building type, address, etc. Repaired in changeset/150382021 |
|
| 150363662 | Boundary repaired in changeset/150381464 |
|
| 150363662 | Your edit carelessly altered the geometry of a district boundary. If you don't know or care what an object is DON'T CHANGE IT. OSM data consumers have more use for correct boundaries than they do for a handful of badly-traced buildings. |
|
| 150346802 | Would it be worth adding the seamark tagging for wrecks? |
|
| 150319778 | In your edit, you carelessly dragged a node on a cycleway from Thurlow Park Road, across West Dulwich Station onto Glazebrook Close. This would be bad enough, but in response to potential errors raised by the iD editor, you added railway crossing nodes in the middle of West Dulwich station. These crossings obviously do not exist and there can be no excuse for you to damage the map simply in order to clear an error message. OpenStreetMap is used by real-world routing applications. It is not a toy and careless edits have consequences. |
|
| 150332843 | Unfortunately, you dragged parts of Lansdowne Hill and Lansdowne Wood Close onto a non-existent junction with Prioress Road in your edit. I have reverted the entire edit in order to restore the geometry of the road network. I've also restored the houses you added, retraced them and tagged them as semi-detached houses. |
|
| 150253350 | Many thanks for adding this detail. When you're adding separate sidewalks, you can also add tags to the parent street, so that routers and renderers know that they're present.
|
|
| 150179378 | Once you have the correct dimensions, it might be better mapped as building=roof + layer=1 + man_made=canopy (it doesn't really need the name tag, but you could put that in the description tag). If you're interested in the 3D representation, you could also add a height tag (height in metres). If you'd like any help with this, please feel free to ask. |
|
| 150188305 | This is already mapped as Firework Ait, which appears to have a well attested name. What is your source for the name "Monkey Island"? |
|
| 150193900 | Thanks for updating this. It's probably worth keeping the tracktype=grade2 tag where it's been mapped, even where it isn't a highway=track. It potentially gives useful information to routing software. If you're updating public rights of way in your area, you might find this resource useful:
|