Logo de OpenStreetMap OpenStreetMap

Gruppo de modificationes Quando Commento
169459358 4 dies retro

(Don't beat me up for invading your turf, Bexhill-OSM).

169329502 6 dies retro

(and modified coffee room "cuisine" tags to correct mispelling and use more common values)

169278439 7 dies retro

@JamesCPrentice you've accidentally marked the entirety of St Leonards-on-sea as a single house in this edit. This has raised a number of errors - please do check your edits carefully before submitting. I'll revert. Thanks.

169007596 13 dies retro

Hello - I'm a bit confused about this edit. My existing buildings here were accurate to the shape of the building and the cadastral map. The newly drawn buildings are less accurate (you can compare with a less-frequently-updated tiling service like some of the layers on https://graphhopper.com/maps/) and do not line up with the cadastral map - it looks like the rooves have been traced rather than the bases of the buldings. Was there an error that caused my submission to need to be redrawn?

167575210 circa 2 menses retro

*Oops, 'The Cake Box'

167449341 circa 2 menses retro

(and fixed building levels that were marked underground)

166267518 2 menses retro

Hello - thanks for your edit. I can see you've added businesses in several countries across Europe. In future, please try to limit your changesets to small geographical areas to avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers. Thanks!

Guidance here: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

166120743 3 menses retro

💚

165703100 3 menses retro

I'm not sure what editor you're using, but I'd *really* encourage you to adopt three changes to your editing:

1. *Please* check your edits before submitting. The amount you're contributing is great and it's nice to see another local editor, but accuracy is really important. osm.wiki/Accuracy

2. Do try to align your building footprints to the base of the building. It's worth using the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer to align the satellite imagery.
https://osmuk.org/cadastral-parcels/

3. Consider squaring your buildings' corners - this will bring curved edges into line and give near-right-angles proper right angles.
https://learnosm.org/en/hot-tips/tracing-rectangular-buildings/

Thank you!

165703100 3 menses retro

Hello - quick issue here, seven buildings on Princes Rd have been given the house number "1", and many of them are marked as being several lasyers below ground level.

165671041 3 menses retro

Hello - thanks for your edit. I can see you've added businesses in Portugal, Belgium and Thailand. In future, please try to limit your changesets to small geographical areas to avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers. Thanks!

Guidance here: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

165518584 3 menses retro

Hello - it's hard to explain without visuals, but take 6 The Uplands as an example:
osm.org/way/1381713422

Two of the nodes in the perimeter way have addr:housenumber and addr:street properties:
osm.org/node/12792117571
osm.org/node/12792117576

I guess this is because you've copied and edited the way from another on Silchester Road. The address properties on the nodes should be removed, since you've already got address properties on the way as a whole.

165482724 3 menses retro

Please don't use the "name" key for building descriptions such as way 1381525736 "Three rear flats - Residential" or 1381665071 "Rear flats". Thanks.

osm.wiki/Key:name

165551164 3 menses retro

Hello! Please note that the "name" feature should be used only for the primary name of a building and not a description, such as "Block fo Flats" [sic] in way 1382013516 or "Antique Shop" in way 1382013510, both on the west half of Norman Road. Thanks.

165542362 3 menses retro

Way number 1381957720 seems to have postcodes as addr:housenumber here. Could you please check?

165518584 3 menses retro

Another note - at least 14 of these buildings have an address node as part of the area way (outline) listing them as number 36 - could you please check?

165517660 3 menses retro

This looks to also be true of changeset 165518584.

osm.org/changeset/165518584

165517660 3 menses retro

At least 45 of these buildings have an address node as part of the area way (outline) listing them as number 36 - could you please check?

165518584 3 menses retro

Hello - there are four houses called "Tapshaw" in this edit. I'm guessing that's an error?

163834257 4 menses retro

Is this an accurate change - is access not permitted or possible for any vehicles on the stretch of road south-west of Tilekiln Lane, or is it rather that traffic is restricted? Note that the lane was already tagged for private vehicle use and unclassified.