ndm's Comments
Changeset | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
119683989 | over 3 years ago | Looks like a dragged node on Elderberry Walk -- there's a very sharp angled spike? |
119685022 | over 3 years ago | What's the copyright on these S. Glos. council documents -- are you really allowed to copy from them? |
119613762 | over 3 years ago | You've added an addr:street which doesn't have a named way - that really doesn't seem correct. |
118767817 | over 3 years ago | I can't see Bing Streetside, or Mapillary imagery -- but Bing seems to show a reasonable verge to walk along. Again, I think sidewalk=no and rather than foot=no would be better. |
118355036 | over 3 years ago | Can't see any "no pedestrians" signs on Bing Streetside. |
118579699 | over 3 years ago | It's not strictly a motorway services -- you can access it from the A-roads -- there's even a footpath that looks like it should connect to the services in the north-east. |
118354866 | over 3 years ago | Can't see any no pedestrian signs on Mapillary -- looks reasonable for horse riders too. |
117808103 | over 3 years ago | I'm partially reverting this - the building isn't triangular and road probably doesn't connect directly to the building. |
119463933 | over 3 years ago | Some of edits seem to be mixing up legal rights, i.e. access - with whether a footpath or a sidewalk is present - which is obviously different :-) Perhaps you could double check that there’s signage explicitly disallowing pedestrians. |
117967268 | over 3 years ago | Also access is public until the gate |
117967268 | over 3 years ago | Why are you marking private roads as access = no |
43657579 | almost 4 years ago | Well it would be best if you could do a proper survey as I mentioned above. As for tone - it’s always difficult to get right - I doubt neither of us are perfect. |
43657579 | almost 4 years ago | I'm sure after five years it'll benefit from a good on the ground survey. |
43657579 | almost 4 years ago | Feel free to add more information. I suspect I was on an organised ramble and obviously found the company of my fellow walkers more interesting than an obscure service road's access rights. I do tend to add the pubs though. |
111840564 | almost 4 years ago | This is miles from Avonmouth, seems an unlikely misleading name. |
111840533 | almost 4 years ago | Is this really being constructed now? |
111062137 | almost 4 years ago | If you edit roads in the City and County of Bristol and change postal_code then you need to move the signed value to an appropriate tag (signed:postal_code). Or just use addr:postcode if you really want to have the whole postcode somehow associated with the road. Otherwise there will be a loss of surveyed information and the changeset will likely get reverted. |
111062137 | almost 4 years ago | Roads (ways) don't really have full postcodes - buildings on opposite sides can often have different full postcodes. I'll revert. |
111062137 | almost 4 years ago | You are changing items that are carefully surveyed - the road signs in Bristol have postcodes on them - that’s what the postal code on the road is signifying - it should be what is signed, I.e. BS9. |
108906353 | almost 4 years ago | It looks like you've redrawn the recycling centre from the old Bing imagery -- this is before it was refurbished. The previous mapped data you deleted matches the GPX tracks I've surveyed for the new facility with up/down ramps and extra specific recycling area "in the middle", e.g. for rubble, batteries, etc. I'll try and upload tracks too. |