correction: survey of 05/06/2016

correction: survey of 05/06/2016

Hello Derick

Thanks for spotting that and letting me know. I've fixed them now.

Jon

Thanks GerdP.

I'll fix the typo later on. I really disagree with your suggestion that this system is obsolete - my sat nav thinks that a highway=traffic_signals node slows down cycling, but a highway=crossing is good for cycling and when combined with crossing=traffic_signals node is even better for cycling (e.g. where a cycle path crosses a busy road). Also, the crossing and the associated traffic lights can be separated, and especially at complex junctions not all traffic lights may have a crossing.
This article says the crossing node should be _near_ the highway=traffic_signals tag: crossing=*
This article suggests that separating the highway=crossing / crossing=traffic_signals node from the highway=traffic_signals node is "strongly recommended":
highway=traffic_signals
OpenCycleMap shows highway=crossing nodes differently depending on the value of crossing= - if the highway=crossing node is merged with the highway=traffic_signals node, this information is lost, and OpenCycleMap doesn't show either yellow (dismount for crossing) or green (crossing designed for bicycles).
In short - I think it's best to separate the traffic lights from the crossings, as this works better with OpenCycleMap, with my journey planner, looks more like what you would see on the ground, and matches the wiki articles.

Jon

Hello Robert.
Thanks for your message. I expect I accidentally copied the name from the adjacent way. I've changed it back.

Hello.
I see that you created an A road, named Safe Haven Route, over the top of the existing residential road called West Road. It's not clear to me what your intent was - did you mean to edit West Road rather than create a new road over the top?

Jon

I stopped using the relationship because of the mass edit - the result made no sense to me either. Yes - the intention was to show a set of traffic lights controlled as a unit.
I tend to stay out of debates, but my opinion is that a relationship is useful, as a route planner should only take one traffic light of a unit into account, but tagging the relationship with highway=traffic_signals, ie the same as the nodes, is confusing or misleading.

Hello.
Amenity=traffic_signals was listed in a wiki article for relating a group of traffic lights, individually tagged with highway=traffic_signals. I no longer use the relationship and only tag individual lights with the highway tag.

Thanks for fixing that. I must have had too many ways selected at the same time.

Oops - sorry about that. Thanks for fixing my mistakes - when I get chance, I'll double check that changeset to see if there were any more problems.

Hello Sailor_Steve.

I see you've removed tracktype=grade5 from way/23269796
My journey planner/sat nav uses tracktype on both tracks and bridleways to work out if a way is suitable for a bicycle - the surface tag is not granular enough for bicycles as it does not give a good guidance to the firmness of the surface.

Apologies - I see you didn't remove tracktype from this section, but the point on access is still valid.

Hello Sailor_Steve.

I see you've removed access=private and tracktype=grade2 from the track way/174916757
My sat nav/journey planner assumes that highway=track is open to all, unless otherwise specified, hence access=private/foot=designated is better than a long list of xxx=no. It also uses tracktype on tracks and bridleways to see if the way is suitable for bicycles. Removing access=private and the tracktype from a track makes the track very attractive to the journey planner, and it sends me down this Public Footpath when I'm on my bike, when this is not allowed. Because of this, I'm going to add the tracktype and access back in.

Jon

Hello Robert.
Thanks for your message. Yes - the road signs said the road was called South Fen Road from the junction with Counter Drain Drove. I've added not:name=Long Drove to cover this.

Hello.
I see you linked West Street with High Street in Odiham. These roads are only linked by the footpath - I've disconnected them again in changeset #34560613.

Hello.

I see that you renamed way/236594421 in your changeset, with comments "Correct street name, as per OS Mapping to Station Road, not River Road." I had marked this as not:name=Station Road because the correct name is not Station Road. The OS Open Data is not always correct for road names in Hampshire. If you look at the road signs (https://www.flickr.com/photos/17958047@N08/9674846992), the name is River Road north of the bridge, and Blacknest Road south of the bridge.

Can I ask you to revert your edits to River Road and Blacknest Road, please?

Jon

also Tickley (3495124965) and Tickley (194001328) - created in 2012

I've also removed Burkham House (3495124952) which was added next to Burkham House (491862843) - created in 2009.

Hello.
I see you added Node: Isnage Farm (3495136722) on 3rd May 2015, quite close to Isnage Farm (507966898) which was added on 26th September 2009. I've noticed that, from time to time, you've added a "place=farm" or "place=isolated_dwelling" right next to an existing node with the same name. I've deleted the extra node in this case.

Fixed in changeset/29053634 and replied to Robert