OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
100629329

Hi, please don't forget to "square" buildings instead of drawing them inaccurate and wonky. Also make sure you check the alignment of Bing imagery as it's usually offset compared to the OSM data.

101842320

Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for the edits.
Not sure if you're aware but the Bing imagery is out of alignment - you can go into the editor's background settings and use the imagery offset to fix it (type in 1.5,-2.6).
I've fixed the building that you moved and also this recycling node as I think you dragged it across the map
node/498847384

101587928

Ok I've marked it as access=private so it should be faded out a bit

101587928

Hi, welcome to OSM. I've added this feature back to map - just because it's not public doesn't mean it can't be mapped, it can be tagged with access restrictions if needed.

100512192

I've fixed the buildings you added - just be aware that the Bing imagery is slightly out of alignment here so needs to be offset before being used for editing :)

101662661

What's the reasoning behind changing the cycleway alongside the tram into a footway and bicycle=no?

101664108

Why have you deleted all of these trees?

101350751

Well an office is not works=* so I've changed it to landuse=commercial :)

101350751

Hi, did you mean to add man_made=works around an office? way/919353697
You also deleted this node, but didn't retain any of the name/product information: node/6887221688/history#map=18/55.91440/-4.19851
And is this actually landfill? way/919353695

101079326

There's the talk-gb mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb (there's a talk-scotland one as well but it's not exactly active).
Also the OSM forum and help sites listed here: osm.org/help

101079326

Think this track and path are duplicates? way/917623432
way/635420680
Also, if you are using Bing imagery please align it with the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels overlay or use offset 1.5,-2.6 in this area. Otherwise you're going to be mapping out of alignment with the current OSM data.

101072240

It's tagged as a tunnel already way/791082706 but if it's not big enough for a vehicle then highway=path would be better

101072240

Sorry but I've had to revert the deletion of this track. As you can see from https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6757517 there is a tunnel here.

In future if you aren't sure whether something exists it might be worth leaving a comment on the original changeset, or using the "add a note to the map" to highlight the issue to other mappers.

100779739

Hi, if this is the incorrect name then do you know what the correct one is?

93518038

Thanks for the reply - just remember that Bing imagery is there as well! :)

99930309

The convention is basically - connectivity is slightly more important than absolute accurary. Otherwise if roads/paths are not connected then routing apps cannot direct people where to go.

Since most places have no pavement mapped separately, paths just connect directly to the road. But feel free to adjust where the paths join - just make sure they are connected :)

93518038

If you had checked something other than Esri imagery when adding a road which crosses a railway then you would've noticed the road does not exist...

99930309

Unfortunately I've had to revert these changes, as well as changeset/99930244 - you disconnected the paths from the roundabout and misaligned the paths.

The Bing imagery seems to be out of alignment so before editing please use the "imagery offset" tool in the background options to align the Bing imagery to the OSM data. Thanks :)

100002249

Is there definitely not even a (foot)path connection between these two roads?

100193492

Hi, welcome to OSM. Thanks for editing the map however I've had to revert your changes as the buildings are misaligned.
If you decide to edit the map please use the "imagery offset" tool in the background options to align the Bing imagery to the current OSM data.