DaveF's Comments
Changeset | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
39926543 | about 9 years ago | As explained earlier, OSM does add 'Railway Station' to names of those stations. Please revert. |
39925627 | about 9 years ago | As per my direct message, could you please refrain from make inaccurate edits. |
39769705 | about 9 years ago | Are you sure? - osm.org/way/89379029 |
39702175 | about 9 years ago | Thanks |
39702175 | about 9 years ago | Hi Alan
|
39215177 | about 9 years ago | OK I've updated to make it slightly more accurate. I made the building an office & added a separate node to indicate the shop. Needs a subtag to indicate what it does/doesn't sell.. |
39215177 | about 9 years ago | Hmm... I thought the Sustrans building was their HQ. Can you bike bikes there? |
38359430 | over 9 years ago | Hi Welcome to OSM.
|
37749403 | over 9 years ago | Yes, but I think Tagging is the more appropriate forum. -----
|
37749403 | over 9 years ago | Good question, & one I've thought about but come to no concrete conclusions. I believe there should be some kind of tag, be it amenity=place_of_worship or some other tag, to define the extent of a place of worship's property which could encompass things such as the building, graveyards, church halls, car parks etc. I'm in two minds whether building=church/synagogue etc. automatically defines where the actual act of worship takes place so frees up amenity=place_of_worship to be used on the boundary. |
37749403 | over 9 years ago | @SK53
|
37749403 | over 9 years ago | Thanks for the replies Please don't tag incorrectly to suit a failing of just one renderer. Remember this is a database & their are many different renderings taken from it. Similar to schools, the amenity=* tag should be a closed polygon encompassing the full area of usage by the organisation with individual entities mapped within. This removes the need for explicit tagging (the car park's name could be removed) or relations, which shouldn't really be used just to collect entities together. Any failure to notice the icon might be overcome if those in charge of mapnik carto might be persuaded to render the polygon. So far, they appear extremely reluctant to do so. |
37749403 | over 9 years ago | The George is already there. |
37705026 | over 9 years ago | Could you contact the app's creators please & let them know that trunk roads are assumed accessible by foot. Do you know why it's only a few disjointed sections? |
37705026 | over 9 years ago | Which app was failing to interpret OSM data correctly? |
37232768 | over 9 years ago | Hi Miko FYI I've started a discussion on the Tagging forum regarding using relations to tag bridges. |
37165908 | over 9 years ago | No problem, Marcus. Details like this are what make OSM better than other online maps. Keep mapping. |
37165908 | over 9 years ago | Hi Readie
If you draw rectangular boxes there's an option to 'square them up' in the toolbar Cheers
|
37097704 | over 9 years ago | You appear to be misunderstanding. It's not the linear ways (waterway=river) that's the problem, but the polygon denoting the riverbanks.(waterway=riverbank). It's disappointing you can't see the clear benefit of not tagging canal banks as river banks. |
37097704 | over 9 years ago | Hi Malcolm
Changing a valid tag for a non preferred one does not improve the database. I originally tagged waterway=riverbank. A couple of months later the newer way was point out to me. I was mildly irritated as I'd spent a lot of time tagging them, but I saw it was an improvement, so put in the extra time to amend them. |