rskedgell's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 143187065 | How does adding crossing:markings=yes to a crossing=marked node help anyone? Is this not just tagging for a validator? If you're using Bing aerial imagery, in most cases you should be able to see what type of crossing it is and tag appropriately, e.g.
|
|
| 141590531 | You appear to have tagged a section of Blachford Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?" I'm cannot find any street side imagery with an OSM-compatible licence to check that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. If there are no TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, then it is very unlikely that a prohibition exists. The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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. |
|
| 141751050 | You appear to have tagged a section of Colney Lane as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?" I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery 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. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery? The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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. |
|
| 138503869 | @Cebderby It is very rare to find a highway tagged with foot=no by the StreetComplete AddProhibitedForPedestrians quest where there is a real (and signed) prohibition. |
|
| 139878635 | @Falsernet No, there isn't. Removed in changeset/143112686 @TeaKayB Bing Streetside imagery does not show 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. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery? The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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. |
|
| 141701484 | Thanks! |
|
| 141229862 | You appear to have tagged a section of Hampstead Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?" I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery 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. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery? The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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. |
|
| 141617690 | You appear to have tagged a section of the roundabout at the junction of Ruislip Road East and Argyle Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?" I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery 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. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery? The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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. |
|
| 141701484 | You appear to have tagged a section of road between Putney Heath and Treville Street as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?" I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery 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. I also note that there is on street parking here, which is generally incompatible with a pedestrian prohibition (you can park, but not get out). Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery? The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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. |
|
| 141945882 | You appear to have tagged a section of Didcot Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?" I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery 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. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery? The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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. |
|
| 142685689 | No response, so reverted in changeset/143101040 Parts of the cycle track are visible in both Bing aerial and streetside imagery. |
|
| 143060951 | building tags reinstated as building=yes in changeset/143077371 |
|
| 143060951 | By removing the building=* tags, you have removed the buildings from the map. If there is a more appropriate building type than industrial (e.g. commercial or retail), please change the tag value. |
|
| 143017463 | We can't use Google's imagery for OpenStreetMap, however there are two imagery layers available in iD which appear to confirm the building's removal. It is shown as a building and labelled "Gas Holder Station" in OS OpenData StreetView (April 2016) The label and building are both absent in OS OpenMap Local (April 2023) |
|
| 143017748 | Thanks. The user who added it has made one other edit in the UK, adding a bus station in the middle of Woodford tube station. This has now been deleted. |
|
| 132354627 | Deleted in changeset/143017748 |
|
| 133755499 | @DaveF Of course it isn't. Removed in changeset/143049541 |
|
| 141989690 | Many thanks - and keep up the good work! |
|
| 132387777 | You appear to have tagged a section of Queensway as foot=no in
I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery 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. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic
The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
Real pedestrian prohibitions are quite rare in the UK, other than on roads where pedestrians are implicitly prohibited due to being tagged with highway=motorway or motorroad=yes. As real pedestrian prohibitions on normal roads in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled. |
|
| 141989690 | You appear to have tagged a section of Snakes Lane East as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?" I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery 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 such a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery? The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
As real pedestrian prohibitions are quite rare in the UK, other than on roads where pedestrians are implicitly prohibited due to being tagged with highway=motorway or motorroad=yes. As real pedestrian prohibitions on normal roads in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled. |