OpenStreetMap
rskedgell's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 156288962 | There isn't exactly that, but building=ruins or building=yes + ruins=yes might work. Possibly building:levels=0 and height=0 might be better than using layer=-1 (which probably won't do anything). You could also add them as inner members of the surrounding natural=wood polygon, assuming that the concrete bases create small clearings in the woodland. It might be worth asking for advice on the community forums, as hopefully other mappers have come across a similar problem before. |
|
| 156227779 | Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map. In order for data consumers to find you and to display the correct icon on maps, you will need to remove the previous occupier's office=estate_agent tag and add amenity=dentist + healthcare=dentist |
|
| 156216678 | Please don't add generic wikipedia and wikidata tags. These links should only be about the specific feature. The tags on the Garrison Stadium tag were probably correct before you replaced them and have been restored. |
|
| 156199595 | I see. If it's closed to pedestrians as well and the closure looks like it will be long term, there are several ways you could do this. 1) Set access=no and remove the foot and bicycle tags 2) Change it to highway=construction + construction=cycleway 3) Use the disused:* lifecycle prefix, changing highway=cycleway to disused:highway=cycleway Option 2 has the advantage that StreetComplete will periodically prompt users to check whether it has reopened. Whichever you use, it is worth adding a note tag briefly describing the situation and a check_date tag. |
|
| 156205048 | Apologies, I see that you added the crossings in changeset/156206389 If you could also update the tags on the parent street from sidewalk=both to sidewalk:both=separate that also gives hints to data consumers.
|
|
| 156199595 | How can a highway=cycleway have a prohibition for bicycles? Has the toucan crossing here been replaced with another crossing type, and if so, what?
Have these signs been removed and replaced?
|
|
| 156205048 | How will these benefit pedestrian routing, as they don't connect via crossings? |
|
| 156192801 | There is nothing wrong with place=village being a node. Please read the wiki before making arbitrary decisions on whether or not an object in OSM is "unnecessary". Of the 15k place=village objects in the UK, about 99% are mapped as nodes. The reasons for this are in the wiki. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/place=village#overview |
|
| 156180505 | Please use meaningful changeset comments. |
|
| 156123546 | Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this. If the business has gone permanently, you could delete the node for the POI and add the address to the polygon for the house which contained it.
|
|
| 156110321 | Watford General Hospital has been mapped as a polygon for ~17 years, so adding a duplicate node is unnecesary. The same applies to the duplicate leisure=park nodes which you have added.
Also, when you use the addr:street tag, this is for the name of the street only. There's documentation on addresses in the UK at osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom |
|
| 130922939 | @Vas111 feel free |
|
| 155983908 | The opening hours can be implemented using conditional restrictions, so you might have something like this:
Mapping indoor=corridor adds area mapping to the linear highway=* ways. There are some examples of shopping centres where this has been done here:
|
|
| 155943594 | Hi Milhouse, I add quite a lot of separate sidewalks and detailed crossings, because I also want effective routing for pedestrians and those with visual or mobility impairments. The crossing tags I deleted were adding by inactive user @alisonlung (see osm.org/user_blocks/6775 ). They were using a task manager on Waymap's site and were not supervised, adding decorative sidewalks and fictitious crossings which were detrimental to pedestrian routing. They also "accidentally" broke cycle routing in a few places with their edits. Many of the crossings they added were fictions connecting decorative and now deleted sidewalks. 18 months later, I am still cleaning up the mess they made. I have just reversed a rather heavy-handed bulk deletion of sidewalks around a part of Kensal Rise which I missed earlier. Discussion of this is on the community forum:
If you're interested in improving pedestrian routing in central London, this MapWithAI project may be of interest:
|
|
| 155983908 | Why? Unless the pedestrian walkways inside the shopping centre no longer exist, there is no reason to delete them. They could probably be tagged better than as highway=pedestrian, e.g. as highway=corridor I have reverted your changeset and changed the tagging in
|
|
| 155970608 | Thanks for updating this. You might find the resource linked below useful if you are mapping your local PRoWs: https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/hants/east-hants/buriton/ |
|
| 52245667 | Unlikely to be on the carriageway of Longstone Avenue and without an address, it's not much use and unlikely to be verifiable on the ground. Deleted. |
|
| 155931019 | Already mapped, although it was only updated a fortnight ago way/291672069 |
|
| 155777752 | Not the most helpful response from Autocab, unfortunately. I've taken a quick look at the Bing street side imagery from the Berwell Road and Drayton Park ends of the service road. To me, this looks more like a pedestrian way which is occasionally used by service vehicles, rather than as a service road which is occasionally used by pedestrians. As you are presumably more familiar with the area around the stadium, does that sound like a better way to describe it? |
|
| 153469981 | I have added and updated the crossings at the Linden Avenue end of the separate sidewalks on Mostyn Gardens, Bolton Gardens, Dagmar Gardens and Station Terrace. This should deter future attempts to delete them by other users. |