Sorry, this isn't local to me. I just updated the road name, writing "Road" in full.

This changeset was created in error. The Yard was added in changeset 148110378.

My comment should have used Windsor *Street*, not Road.

Hi,

In this changeset you added an entrance for number 49:

osm.org/node/11053759097

You appear to have inadvertently tagged it with an addr:street of Albion Street instead of Clarence Street.

Could you fix it, please?

Thanks,
Nick

Hi,

In this changeset you've added a garden which the High Street goes through (osm.org/way/1213459717).

The feature on the ground is more like a glorified flowerbed, and in any case, the road does not go through it.

Could you please move the "garden" and the trees slightly so they're not intersected by the road, and perhaps re-tag the area as man_made=planter or similar?

Thanks,
Nick

Hi. You've added two entrance nodes (osm.org/node/11242350932 and osm.org/node/11242365756). They duplicate their buildings' addresses which is neither desirable nor necessary. You've also used addr:block, which is not common in the UK. If the entrances are for specific flats, add addr:flats. Please do not duplicate the address information (such as addr:housenumber and addr:street).

Thanks,
Nick

Thanks for the comment. I made heavy use of associatedStreet relations when adding addresses in Cheltenham, as at the time that was what people on the #osm-gb IRC channel recommended. (Capturing the information was the most important thing; later it could be represented differently if desired.) Now I use addr:parentstreet as you suggest as it's simpler.

I pasted the inscription instead my intended comment, which was:

Add inscription on Thomas M. Kettle monument in St Stephen's Green.

The original changeset comment should have referred to Suffolk Coffee, not Soho Coffee.

Re-used a previous changeset comment by mistake. The comment for this change should have been:

Removed incorrect addr:street usage on two ways.

Hi,

I went there today and collected some missing addresses, which I've now added. Construction has mostly finished. (There are only two houses being built now.)

I also fixed one of your FIXMEs. (20 Fairford Road wasn't in the correct place.)

Several houses on Withington Close (which I added the name for) are now occupied. The others are mostly sold and awaiting occupation.

Can you please copy the UPRN from the node you created near Fossebridge Place to the appropriate way? (The other node is for a building which is still under construction I think.)

Thanks,
Nick

Hi,

I'm actually planning on going to the area tomorrow to collect a few missing house numbers, and to see how the construction is progressing near Fossebridge Place. Based on imagery it looks like some of the houses may well be finished by now.

Feel free to add the building outlines. I will try to get addresses for them ☺

Nick

Hi Karl,

Thanks for the explanation. Ordnance Survey and OpenStreetMap naturally have their own different conventions and styles. With OpenStreetMap being a global project, it tries to adopt schemes that work globally (sometimes with a few local changes).

For the sake of consistency as well as routing, I think it makes sense to follow the established conventions.

I understand your desire for more road classifications, but highway=service on these roads isn't the answer. I'm planning on reverting your change to restore consistency to the roads in town. I'm happy to discuss particular roads if you like.

Thanks,
Nick

Hi Karl,

Thanks for your reply.

I'm curious: what motivated you to change these roads/streets in the first place?

These streets in the town centre have been largely untouched for 13 years or so. When changing data in OpenStreetMap, especially as a relatively new mapper, it's worth considering why things are tagged as they are, and whether you have new information that others might have overlooked.

Thanks,
Nick

Hi,

I'm a bit confused about why you've tagged several sections of road as service roads. Can you please explain why you've tagged Winchcombe Street, part of the High Street, Rodney Road, and Regent Street as service roads?

I'm happy to provide to help if necessary.

Thanks,
Nick

I accidentally created this changeset without a comment. The comment should have been:

Added some missing addresses on Winchcombe Street and tidy up some nearby buildings.

Hi.

Thank you for changing the nearby road back to a service road as I requested.

I'm not sure why you have added a path. There is no path on the ground. Your comment implies that a path is necessary as is there is a service road. That's not correct. A service road does not preclude or necessarily prohibit foot access in itself. The service road is tagged with foot=designated since it is a public right of way.

Please remove the path you added.

Happy to help with any questions you have.

Thanks,
Nick

Hi. Welcome to OpenStreetMap--it's great to have more people to improve the map.

In this changeset, you've changed osm.org/way/263281130 from a service road to a residential one. This is a service road: it provides access to facilities at a rugby club. Would you mind changing it back to a service road, please? ☺

In another changeset, you changed osm.org/way/540025132 from a footway to a path. In OpenStreetMap, "path" is more generic: it can be practically anything (an unofficial path, a cycleway, ...). "footway" clearly specifies that a way is for use on foot.

Thanks,
Nick

Hi,

That way isn't officially Hambrook Terrace. Named terraces are often invisible on the map, so sometimes I'll add a name like this, even though it's not strictly correct.

Maybe the name would be better on way 839121813, in a similar style to way 563124895.

Thanks,
Nick

Hi,

Thanks for pointing this out. I've fixed it.

Nick