trigpoint's Comments
Changeset | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
98935009 | over 4 years ago | Thank you Alan
I have tidied it up in osm.org/changeset/98991552 Cheers Phil |
98934863 | over 4 years ago | Diolch, however name:en="Fairy Glen" is still missing. Cheers Phil |
98935009 | over 4 years ago | Hi, welcome to OSM. In OSM we use a highway type which reflects the physical nature and looking at imagery I can see it was correctly mapped as a track. By changing it to a footway you are preventing vehicles reaching the farm, which clearly is incorrect. From historic imagery it appears to be a white road, so was correctly mapped. You may want to clarify access which you have already done but it should be put back to a track. Footway implies foot only to routers. Cheers Phil |
98920186 | over 4 years ago | HI, am wondering why you have removed the perfectly correct wikidata tag from this relation? Cheers Phil |
98835547 | over 4 years ago | Bore da
For example
Diolch Phil |
97586193 | over 4 years ago | If you have usable evidence that these are bridleways then they should also be tagged as designation=public_bridleway, bicycle=yes and horse=yes. Cheers Phil |
98761270 | over 4 years ago | Hi, this edit has gone a little wrong. THis is two separate properties with separate driveways. You cannot drive from one to the other. Also please check and update your imagery used for every changeset, you cannot have used Bing Streetside or Openstreetcam at this location. Cheers Phil |
98596743 | over 4 years ago | Noswaith dda, croisi y osm. Thank you for your edit however a few things need fixing. Firstly the A40 needs to be changed back to a trunk road. Secondly the name tag is for actual names, it is not there to add information to the map. The correct way is to use access tagging and I believe for you description that the coorect tagging is motor_vehicle=no / foot=yes / bicycle=dismount I have made these corrections but please let me know what you think. Diolch Phil |
98321597 | over 4 years ago | Again where are you sourcing your gps data from? As the sources you have used for this edit are clearly outdated. The smart motorway work which is described in previous changesets is still ongoing. When making such changes it is always wise to read the comments made by mappers with local knowledge. Please comply with the organised editing guidelines as previously requested,. I have reverted this changeset. Cheers Phil |
98294519 | over 4 years ago | Hi, welcome to OSM, This edit appears to be rather incorrect, the marker was already correctly positioned on the hamlet and it seems very odd that you have moved it into a caravan park. This could be very misleading to map users. I am reverting this edit. Cheers Phil |
98099933 | over 4 years ago | This is not correct and needs to be reverted. |
96187998 | over 4 years ago | I have 'hopefully' fixed the name suggestion index to point at the correct brand:wikidata in future |
97842907 | over 4 years ago | Hi, welcome to OSM. Thank you for your edit, you are correct that there is no connection here for motor vehicles, however imagery shows that there is a path linking the two roads indicating there is a connection for pedestrians and most likely cyclists. The two roads should be connected with a path. Please remember that OSM is used for very mny modes of transport and you should not assume it is only for motor vehicles. Cheers Phil |
97553753 | over 4 years ago | Hi, your edits are very spaced out suggesting that you are not working from local knowledge and that these are part of an organized edit. Please respond to comments made and follow the guidelines in https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines What is the purpose of your project? As has already been pointed out to you, deducing speed limits from GPS data is prone to error as can clearly clearly be seen in this edit. Where are you sourcing GPS data from? In the case of this edit, mapping a 60 mph limit passing a school should have set alarm bells ringing as it did for me. A quick glance at the imagery shows the expected change of limit. Checking such things should be second nature to someone who drives in the UK. osm.org/edit?editor=id&way=84866490#map=21/52.05296/-4.32292 Please update your profile and follow organised editing guidelines and ensure that your work is accurate. Cheers Phil |
97317775 | over 4 years ago | Hi, Greyfriars Road has no lane markings so tagging it as having lanes is not really appropriate. It should really be residential. Cheers Phil |
96276632 | over 4 years ago | This edit makes perfect sense. The site has been under used as a car park for a number of years since the demolition of Granby Halls. It is being redeveloped as a hotel. Cheers Phil |
97113048 | over 4 years ago | However a PROW should be tagged as foot=yes, it is not permissive as it is a legal right of way. |
97116404 | over 4 years ago | Thank you |
97116404 | over 4 years ago | Bore da
Diolch Phil |
97157242 | over 4 years ago | Bore da
Cheers Phil |