OpenStreetMap
rskedgell's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 135888297 | over 2 years ago | Thanks for updating this. Listed building mapping in England has tended to use the following recently:
The older HE_ref=* key is still very common and there may be instances of ref:GB:he. I don't think I've seen any instances of heritage:ref=* or heritage:since=* before now and taginfo suggests they are very rare in GB, possibly because they're not documented in the wiki. |
| 135882477 | over 2 years ago | Spam and vandalism reverted in osm.org/changeset/135889017 and reported to DWG.
|
| 131734040 | over 2 years ago | Are you sure about that - did you actually survey it and notice the barriers at either end, or the notices about the indefinite closure? https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/22767-impound-station-footbridge-closed Reverted in osm.org/changeset/135837441 |
| 124020176 | over 2 years ago | Hi currybum, Thanks for editing the map with StreetComplete. You have marked parts of Alton Road (A31) and Runwick Lane as being prohibited for pedestrians. I cannot find any signage indicating that a prohibition exists in the available streetside imagery. Is this a newly signed restriction, or is there some other reason to believe that a prohibition exists? Please ensure that if you are marking a road as prohibited for pedestrians, that there is actually a restriction on pedestrians. The vast majority of roads in the UK do not prohibit pedestrians, although they may be unsuitable for pedestrians. Many sections of roads, particularly on dual carriageways and parts of complex junctions may be unsuitable for pedestrians, but that does not extinguish the legal right to use them. Where pedestrians are prohibited, there will usually be a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1) on a public highway, or the equivalent health and safety sign on private land.
The StreetComplete AddProhibitedForPedestrians Quest ("Add whether roads are prohibited for pedestrians") adds a foot=no or foot=yes access tag to the road, based on the user's answer. The OSM wiki's description of access tagging states that "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if signage is generally ignored."
|
| 125101887 | over 2 years ago | Hi Sworrs, Thanks for editing the map with StreetComplete. You have marked the northbound carriageway of Blyth Road (A1) where it crosses the Chesterfield Canal as being prohibited for pedestrians. I cannot find any signage indicating that a prohibition exists in the available streetside imagery, either here, or on the slip roads from Retford Road (A620). Is this a newly signed restriction, or is there some other reason to believe that a prohibition exists? Please ensure that if you are marking a road as prohibited for pedestrians, that there is actually a restriction on pedestrians. The vast majority of roads in the UK do not prohibit pedestrians, although they may be unsuitable for pedestrians. Many sections of roads, particularly on dual carriageways and parts of complex junctions may be unsuitable for pedestrians, but that does not extinguish the legal right to use them. Where pedestrians are prohibited, there will usually be a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1) on a public highway, or the equivalent health and safety sign on private land.
The StreetComplete AddProhibitedForPedestrians Quest ("Add whether roads are prohibited for pedestrians") adds a foot=no or foot=yes access tag to the road, based on the user's answer. The OSM wiki's description of access tagging states that "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if signage is generally ignored."
|
| 125396813 | over 2 years ago | Hi marikoenig, Thanks for editing the map with StreetComplete. You have marked the bridge where Military Road (A3055) crosses Shepherd's Chine as being prohibited for pedestrians, however I cannot find any signage indicating that a prohibition exists in the available streetside imagery. Is this a new restriction, or is there some other reason to believe that a prohibition exists? Please ensure that if you are marking a road as prohibited for pedestrians, that there is actually a restriction on pedestrians. The vast majority of roads in the UK do not prohibit pedestrians, although they may be unsuitable for pedestrians. Many sections of roads, particularly on dual carriageways and parts of complex junctions may be unsuitable for pedestrians, but that does not extinguish the legal right to use them. Where pedestrians are prohibited, there will usually be a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1) on a public highway, or the equivalent health and safety sign on private land.
The StreetComplete AddProhibitedForPedestrians Quest ("Add whether roads are prohibited for pedestrians") adds a foot=no or foot=yes access tag to the road, based on the user's answer. The OSM wiki's description of access tagging states that "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if signage is generally ignored."
|
| 117326925 | over 2 years ago | No problem, the quest is a bit vague in the UK context. In other countries, there probably isn't a requirement for explicit signage for pedestrians to be prohibited from using the carriageway on roads like this. We could do with some way of tagging ways where pedestrians are not actually prohibited, but where no routing software should ever contemplate sending them. That doesn't fit with access tagging as currently documented and I have no idea what would work. |
| 117326925 | over 2 years ago | Hi, You have tagged these roads as being prohibited for pedestrians (foot=no) via the StreetComplete app. I cannot find any evidence of "pedestrians prohibited" signs at either end of these sections. What is your reason for believing that pedestrians are legally prohibited here, rather than it appearing to be inconvenient, unsafe, or inadvisable? In OSM, access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork.
|
| 135753992 | over 2 years ago | OpenStreetMap is a live database and map and absolutely not the place to carry out test edits. Fully reverted in osm.org/changeset/135758138 |
| 135746993 | over 2 years ago | The Scalpel was added in 2017, so I am not entirely sure what the object of this edit was. You also appear to have inadvertently deleted the adjacent pedestrian area
|
| 125818762 | over 2 years ago | I've added the PRoW tags to this bridleway, which includes foot=designated. You may already be aware of this, but you can check the mapping status of PRoWs in Hampshire here:
|
| 124967873 | over 2 years ago | Although walking around the carriageway of Teville Rounadbout is probably unwise, it isn't actually prohibited. There needs to be a sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1) for that, which isn't the case here. AddProhibitedForPedestrians is not the most helpful of StreetComplete's quests in the UK for most primary and lower classification roads, as it often results in either redundant foot=yes or incorrect foot=no tags. I usually have it disabled. osm.wiki/Tag:foot%3Dno
|
| 122346312 | over 2 years ago | It's probably better to revert to historic=building or use historic=yes |
| 135455213 | over 2 years ago | Thanks for checking and updating this and other closed businesses. As you asked for a review of this changeset, I have a couple of suggestions and have included links to the documentation below. I should stress that nothing you have done is incorrect or urgently needs to be changed - the important thing is that features which no longer exist have been removed from the map. Rather than removing the amenity=* or shop=* tag, you could use a lifecycle prefix like disused, so in this case it would be disused:amenity=fast_food. This gets picked up by the StreetComplete app, so users will be prompted to check for a new business. You could also change the name tag to old_name. Although you have the survey date in the changeset comment, you can also put it in the check_date tag, e.g. check_date=2023-04-28. This is also used by tools like StreetComplete. It's probably better to add landuse as a separate polygon than to add it as a tag to an existing object ("One feature, one OSM element"). osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
|
| 118822927 | over 2 years ago | I fail to see the point of importing w1042953053. a short and unconnected length of footway. Deleted in osm.org/changeset/135419981
|
| 135408126 | over 2 years ago | Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your business. In order for it to "work", you need to add tags to display an appropriate icon on the map and tell data consumers what you are. In this case, this would be leisure=sauna (link to documentation below). If you would like any help with this, please feel free to ask. |
| 135394056 | over 2 years ago | Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating Nashes Farm Lane. The original highway=unclassified tag doesn't imply anything about the usability of the road. It fits on the hierarchy of roads at about the same level as highway=residential. From the definitions in the OSM wiki (links below), this does not look like it should be highway=tertiary. You could add surface=asphalt to the road, as the surface is currently untagged. There's also smoothness=*, but that's more of a subjective tag. I hope that's useful. If you would like any help, please don't hesitate to ask. osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
|
| 135349932 | over 2 years ago | Thanks! |
| 118822080 | over 2 years ago | I fail to understand the point of adding w1042946426. Not only was this part of the C3/CS3 cycle track already mapped as w194387797, the added way was not routeable as it was neither tagged as a highway=*, nor was it connected to any other OSM object. Deleted in osm.org/changeset/135379579
|
| 135344841 | over 2 years ago | Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the library. For shops and amenities which have closed, you can use a lifecycle prefix rather than changing the name, so in this case you could change
|