Sorry for the delayed reply. I'm not sure whether motor_vehicle=private or motor_vehicle=no is better, but motor_vehicle=permit seems wrong according to the wiki (access=permit), since that tag suggests that anyone who asks for a permit will receive one, which is not the case here. The wiki says "If permit is hard to obtain, then it is typically access=private".

You said you struggled to find the wiki documentation - here's the list of values: access=*#List_of_possible_values

Hi, I've split this building into two, and added the wikidata tag.

P.S. it looks like there are two duplicate wikidata items for the Barclay Suites (Q111408302 and Q111679947)

I agree that motor_vehicle=permit makes sense for the small section northwest of node/272776225, sorry if that wasn't clear in my original message. But motor_vehicle=permit doesn't seem right for the other end of the trail, especially south-east of the Siberia Tunnel (see previous message).

More importantly, could you please explain why you're changing some access restrictions from "designated" to "yes", and deleting the bicycle= and foot= tags? I don't quite understand your explanation in changeset/110939910 and changeset/111562537

Hi, I haven't made any changes to these trails for several months... Please also note that no one has "ownership" over any features in OSM, we should all aim to map things as best as possible.

You're right, the difference between "designated" and "yes" does not affect route relations, but it is important to distinguish the difference between:
- a path that is designed for cycling (e.g. the Remutaka Rail Trail would have bicycle=designated),
- vs a path that is not designed for cycling, yet cycling is still allowed (e.g. the Kāpiti Expressway would have bicycle=yes).

More info here: access=designated

Regarding `motor_vehicle=permit`, this is tricky, but the wiki page says "This tag should be used in cases where a permit is required, but is routinely granted to everyone requesting it". You would know better than me whether this definition is appropriate, but I don't think it makes sense south of the Siberia Tunnel, where there are anti-car barriers, no useful destination for cars, nowhere to turn around for several kilometers, and no car access without going thru private property.

More info here: access=permit

Hi, you wouldn't be allowed to drive a car down the Remutaka Rail Trail, even if you politely asked GWRC or DOC, so it's not correct to add `motor_vehicle=permit` to this trail, see access=permit

(except for the small section northwest of node/272776225)

Also, please don't remove the tags `bicycle=designated` and `foot=designated`, or downgrade them to `*=yes`, since they are very important for routing software. (see changeset/110939910 and changeset/111562537 )

Hi, based on aerial imagery the village you mapped in Colombia does not exist. Could you please confirm whether it is a real place? If not, you can map imaginary places using https://OpenGeoFiction.net, but please don't do this in OpenStreetMap. Thanks.

---

Hola, basado en imágenes aéreas, el pueblo que mapeó en Colombia no existe. ¿Podría por favor confirmar si es un lugar real? Si no, puede mapear lugares imaginarios usando https://OpenGeoFiction.net, pero por favor no hagas esto en OpenStreetMap. Gracias. (traducción automática)

---

https://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=119928427
osm.org/#map=17/6.92904/-74.82637

thanks for fixing this, but it looks like node/8779008213 is now a vertex of Clifton Terrace (way/165915853).

Is this what you'd expect? i.e. is there actually a gate on Clifton Tce that's impassable for cars?

Hi, I see you renamed Porritt Stadium to Porritt Park. My understanding is that Porritt Stadium (way/102655278/history) is located within Porritt Park (way/168977549), so the names were already correct. Is there a reason you changed the name?

Hi, please don't remove area=yes from leisure=track. Removing the area=yes tags has broken the rendering of these long jump tracks

Hi, you seem to be drawing multiple lines on top of each other (see way/316766082 and way/1039204880). Please do not do this, OpenStreetMap uses relations for this purpose.

Perhaps you could explain what you're trying to achieve with your recent edits?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118342516

Hi, you seem to have deleted part of the coastline (way/318649956), and created a broken boundary (relation/13912523)

Any objection if I undo that part of your edit?

P.S. I see you're trying to split the current boundary for "Marlborough" into two identical boundaries for the "Marlborough District" and "Marlborough Region" with the same geographic area. I'm curious to know what the benefit of this change is, since it will cause some software to add a redundant extra line to street addresses:

e.g.
12 Example Street
Riversdale
Blenheim
Marlborough
Marlborough
New Zealand

oh i couldn't find an existing tag - there aren't many tags to describe theatres. Some tags like stage:width, stage:depth are already in use. maybe we need to write a proposal...

Thanks for noticing this, the automatic conflation can't detect addresses with only addr:housenumber and no addr:street. Since this is a relatively rare situation, I manually merged most of them as I noticed them. There were a few hundred across the country which were missed, but I merged most of these this morning. There are 180 more in wellington, but other than those, please let me know if you find any more

Hi, this is not fictional mapping. Please see Maxar Premium Imagery

I had a look this afternoon, since StreetComplete can't solve this issue (see discussion in the GitHub link above). There are about 3900 of these duplicate addresses in NZ. They can now be automatically merged by the address import tool (https://osm-nz.github.io)

Good idea, I've opened this issue to continue the discussion: https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/3791

StreetComplete already disables the address quest if there's an address node within the building outline, but in NZ a lot of the address nodes are a few metres in front of the house

Hi, in general it's more useful if the address nodes are either merged into the building, or dragged within the building outline. So there is value in doing this StreetComplete quest.

To avoid duplicate addresses I think the LINZ-to-OSM address tool should delete the nodes if the address is included on the building. I'll see if that's easy to implement.

The other option is to disable this StreetComplete quest for all of NZ, which some countries have done (see https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/blob/master/app/src/main/java/de/westnordost/streetcomplete/quests/address/AddHousenumber.kt#L29-L35)

Hi, please see this lengthy discussion about place names in New Zealand, where it was decided that the official name should be used: https://lists.osm.org/pipermail/talk-nz/2021/thread.html#318

In this case, the official name is Whangārei, as per https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/48143

P.s. the spelling on every sign in my local area was changed to Whangārei over the past 3 months

Hi, since I didn't hear back from you, I've marked the driveway as "access=private" until you or someone else can confirm that it is indeed public. As always, anyone (including youself) is free to edit the access restrictions

Hi, sorry I couldn't find any guidelines about how landuse is normally mapped in america (I looked at osm.wiki/United_States/Tags and osm.wiki/Connecticut)

I've seen both extremes in the US - a whole suburb covered by a single `landuse=residential` area, and places where the landuse is split at every street, park, school, etc.

My intention was to draw the landuse first, then add the landcover ontop.
Of course I won't do it like that now, thanks for linking to that example.

Regarding the New Canaan Reservoir - sorry that was my mistake, that should definitely be excluded from the residential landuse