OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

SomeoneElse's Notes

Notes submitted or commented on by SomeoneElse

Id Creator Description Created at Last changed
296559 SomeoneElse

There are two farms named "Butterley Farm" here (to the southwest and northeast). Both have been tagged based on signage, but need to recheck because of the obvious duplication.

297582 SomeoneElse

What time does this open? A recent changeset comment says that the cafe at node/3230697001 is open every day until 14:00, but when does it open? Does it open 7 days a week?

298047 SomeoneElse

There are some duplicate "localities" here node/2899977546 and node/2899955722 are both allegedly "Caythorpe Low Fields". To the east are node/2899955724 and node/2899955725, allegedly "Fulbeck Low Fields". In reality I suspect both of these places (if they exist at all on the modern world) are areas rather than point locations, and the mapper has just copied text from OS_OpenData_StreetView without thinking at all about what it represents.

298048 SomeoneElse

I'm not convinced that the farmland to the west of the ridge such as way/319041308 is really "meadow". When I was last there it just looked like part of the rest of the local farmland (some arable, some with animals on it).

299164 SomeoneElse

Is way/315901396 really a river? As mapped it seems to flow uphill into the village, around, and then down again, which is surely wrong.

299227 SomeoneElse

Landuse needs surveying properly. My recollection is there there are no meadows around Leadenham - it's just regular agricultural land (mostly arable, some grazing).

301061 SomeoneElse

The Bing imagery here is currently offset to the south by 5m or so, and unfortunately this does not seem to be have been taken into account by recent "non-surveying" mappers.

Things need shuffling north to match reality (the actual amount varies by location).

301069 SomeoneElse

Check for any signage that might justify the name of way/40961536 as current. I suspect there won't be any - if there isn't any evidence for the name it should be removed.

8684 SomeoneElse

Is this path really called this? It looks more like a description than a ame.

301070 SomeoneElse

The imagery suggests that way/316741487 should be abandoned rather than disused - is it possible to check properly from the footpath to the south, or does the relative level of the path and rail line make this impossible?