SomeoneElse's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 182621234 | Actually, no: It wasn't an iD edit that caused this but a JOSM one, so iD is blameless here.
|
|
| 182569245 | Hello,
|
|
| 182461066 | Re "There clearly isn't any track or railway features remaining" there very definitely is - a flat railbed making its way through cuttings and over embankments, with bits of railway detritus around where the bridleway-making wombles haven't tidied it up.
|
|
| 170369768 | Why did you delete relation/15969963/history and re-add way/1421957046#map=19/19.433810/-99.127993 here? What was wrong with the previous one? |
|
| 171839878 | Hello,
|
|
| 172067055 | Has node/9392750454/history really been turned from a public bookcase back into a public telephone? It seems unlikely... |
|
| 182161750 | Thanks |
|
| 182057050 | Thanks. The licence of that github repository (by an individual https://github.com/ghofinka ) is MIT, but what is the licence of the underlying data? The source of that is listed as https://www.nomor.net/_kodepos.php but that's just an ad-filled cesspit. I can't see where that got the data from and under what licence. |
|
| 57803098 | Just checking - is way/69417373/history really a kindergarten? |
|
| 181847437 | Hello (ref osm.org/user_blocks/20251),
|
|
| 182057050 | What was the source of the data here (ref osm.org/user_blocks/20251 )? |
|
| 182161750 | Hello,
|
|
| 182033944 | See also comment at https://en.osm.town/@SK53/115017119561900374 "Unlike virtually every other #OpenStreetMap feature it [separate sidewalk mapping] is not resilient when incomplete." |
|
| 182033944 | (somewhat related to changeset/182032968 ) you've added a separate sidewalk way/1506893728 to way/1214633815 but haven't tagged that road as "sidewalk=separate" or similar. That's necessary so that maps that actually show sidewalks can do so. You can see that at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#15/53.1192/-4.1267 - there you can see that way/806805686 is shown with a wider casing because it is tagged as "sidewalk=both" (which should now be "sidewalk=separate") but is not, because it has no "sidewalk" tag. |
|
| 182032968 | I've filled in the gap; see relation/11114801#map=19/53.117194/-4.120413 . My recollection here is that you'd just "walk across the road" here, but it needs someone to Actually Go There to see where the signage points and adjust as necessary. |
|
| 182023810 | Ah - never mind. Someone will fill in the gap, I'm sure. |
|
| 182032968 | Usually the positioning of the signs would tell you where the path should go? |
|
| 181838599 | Hello,
|
|
| 182032968 | Hello,
|
|
| 182023810 | Ah - just spotted the EV1 here. I guess that that is correct for the NCN9 also? |