OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
111263392 over 3 years ago

Hi Mike - my edit didn't touch that tag - better to take it up with the actual editor. I'm actually indifferent about the issue

Regards

Brian

72006883 almost 4 years ago

brainfart of epic proportion!

112620854 almost 4 years ago

this is a designated public footpath so bicycle=yes is not correct

111145509 almost 4 years ago

oops1 mre finger touble now fixed

111146059 almost 4 years ago

oops! finger touble - now fixed

103839130 almost 4 years ago

Hi Jerry

If you feel that is most appropriate then go ahead and change it. Your knowledge is superior to mine

Regards

Brian

108628260 almost 4 years ago

deleted

108628260 almost 4 years ago

Does this business really exist inside Waitrose? I shop there and haven't noticed it. I suspect this is the location you've copied from Google Maps. Also the address quoted doesn't exist so it can't be mapped accurately. One for deletion I'm afraid

109539763 almost 4 years ago

No responsefrom you so changeset reverted

109539763 almost 4 years ago

Please stop what you are doing until you know better. You have deleted a section of the River Corve and removed many relations that were were a result of a day's work. I shall probably revert this entire edit

109521655 almost 4 years ago

Thanks Colin I'll take a look

106522655 almost 4 years ago

Please be careful when editing relations: this changeset broke multiple relations which took a lot of fixing

105815624 about 4 years ago

Thanks for the suggestion but my tag was chosen precisely so that there were would be no render and also serve to deter anyone else from recovering the trees from outdated aerial imagery Tree stump not appropriate - not visible in the piles of wood/branches left after felling

102999836 about 4 years ago

No problems. Will do

102999836 about 4 years ago

No need I did this deliberately to save myself work in case the situation reverses if BCC decide to remove the popup cycle lane in the road which currently makes this shared cycle/footpath redundant and I have to reinstate it

Regards

Brian

74106495 over 4 years ago

please be careful with your sources one of your footpaths (way 722066183) goes straight through a building

103151959 over 4 years ago

You haven't kept boundary and landuse separate - you've deleted landuse. I've re-added landuse. This is an important landmark in the west midlands and needs to be shown as forest.

4357649 over 4 years ago

Because I don't have sufficient knowledge of pipeline topography to know where a section ref starts and finishes

101062191 over 4 years ago

Interested to know to source and licence for the data for the proposed road

102439983 over 4 years ago

These are terraced houses and are all joined together they are not separate- easiest to bulk delete them and start again!