Colin Smale's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 187399633 | No probs but I am not sure which place you are referring to. I am sorry I wasn't more explicit in my initial message - I meant to refer to Newton Aycliffe, relation/9279708 . It doesn't exist as an administrative entity, so it shouldn't have an admin_level at all, nor should it have an admin_centre. |
|
| 187399633 | Hi Zack,
|
|
| 186781262 | please use barrier=fence and not boundary=fence. The latter implies it is the boundary of a fence, which is not what you intend! |
|
| 186609039 | Sorry Dave, I have to take issue with your insinuation here. I do retain ways, and even parts of ways, where they remain identical. Due to the use of a more accurate transform from OSGB to WGS84 the ways are not exactly identical. OSM is not about retaining the full history of every element, it's about reflecting the current situation as accurately as possible. If you want to travel back in time, openhistoricalmap.org can probably help. I spent over 20 hours on this in the past week, because a mapper requested an update and I volunteered to help out. I don't appreciate being criticised for something trivial like this. If you want to see some real abuse of mapping of boundary relations, take a look at what happens in Ireland, where entire relations are regularly deleted and recreated. |
|
| 186609039 | Hi Dave,
|
|
| 181957902 | oops, my bad! it's fixed it now. Thanks for catching it. |
|
| 180279996 | The border you have removed was not a current administrative border but between the "traditional" counties of Essex and Hertfordshire, which has changed in the course of time, as you can see here: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=15.0&lat=51.86329&lon=0.17397&layers=10&right=osm
|
|
| 178636880 | The administrative boundary with its seaward extension is CORRECT, however odd it may seem. I will revert these changes. If anyone wants to discuss this, please get in touch BEFORE screwing up the data. |
|
| 142588476 | Hi John. The MLW thing is default, and technically it's MLWS in Scotland. But as you correctly point out there are exceptions, created in law and known as Seaward Extensions. Big ones that come to mind include Brighton Marina and the Bristol Channel. I'll take a look at Rosyth and Boness - I'm not so familiar with the Scottish coastline as I am with the south coast! |
|
| 173793004 | Hi, thanks for responding.
|
|
| 173793004 | Please explain a) why Redcar (town) should have an admin boundary in OSM and b) why this line is a correct representation of it |
|
| 173679363 | Hi Matty,
|
|
| 140284015 | Hi Paul, Thanks for your observation!
|
|
| 169698116 | Just curious... Where did you find the postcode boundaries (not the centroids)? |
|
| 169240009 | Hi Ryan, indeed, you selected the wrong "way". I think your customer meant that the bridge over the railway line is closed to all (motor) vehicles (and not the whole length of Broadmead Road). This appears to be already correctly mapped in OSM; no moto vehicles, taxis included, should be routed across the bridge itself. For future reference, marking a road as "motor_vehicle=no" would achieve what you wanted. Just "taxi=no" wouldn't stop a bus or a car for example. |
|
| 169240009 | Hi Ryan... In this changeset you have added "taxi=no" to a couple of electoral ward boundaries. I suspect you meant to add them to the roads which they follow.
|
|
| 168240198 | How does one interpret designation=public_footpath in combination with access=no? Specifically here: way/399112196#map=16/51.67607/-2.19830
|
|
| 166991910 | Please revert these changes. railway=preserved is problematic and has been superseded by railway:preserved=yes. Please refer to railway=preserved?uselang=en-GB |
|
| 165606862 | That the authority has an elected Mayor. Not all Combined Authorities do. |
|
| 164348772 | Hi,
|