I'm not at all sure the Strategic Investment boundary belongs in OpenStreetMap. It certainly is not an administrative area in the common meaning of the usage of boundary=administrative, so a different tag should be used.

Also it's not clear that the linked document is a suitable source for OSM data.

Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. I suspect that the area mapped as the BT Estate is too large as it covers the railway lines which I presume are owned/managed by Network Rail.

I also note that the road giving access to the BT depot is missing. I could add it myself, but it's far better if people local to an area do this as there aerial images are often out of date.

Thanks

Just happen to be looking at recent edits around Nottingham and would like to remind you that we are meeting in the Lincolnshire Poacher tonight in case you wanted to come along: osm.wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup. Plenty of us are interested in footpaths.

Hi Mike,

These may have been inappropriate for the name tag, but the first one I looked at had useful mappable information in the tag (light vehicles only) which you have removed.

I'd prefer if you actually moved name=>description than deleted the tag.

Fixed: copying tags from object to object has it's issues :-)

Looks like the reverts didnt go back far enough Lambeth Bridge is a horrendous mess

One other thought about Ibadan. There are lot of things mapped as hospitals which probably aren't: clinics & health centres etc. There's a tendency for mappers to use amenity=hospital because it shows up prominently, but it makes the data much less useful for many purposes.

Ok have done that (so your pop figure is on old node). There are large cities genuinely missing from Nigeria, see the Nigeria section of my blog post here: http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/urban-areas-2-derivation-from.html. Unfortunately there are big gaps in the aerial imagery and clouds on landsat. This might be a gap where a university-based project could achieve more leverage. I've followed you on twitter.

I think I'll merge this node back to the original one (node/27565066/history) to retain the history (for instance the original one has a wikidata link)

My map is issue B/* (c) 1962, updated with PRoW and major roads 1967. I notice the map on NLS doesnt have the spot height either, and the earlier interpolated contours on the 6" and 2.5 inch OOC maps dont really agree with the spot height (http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=52.6502&lon=-0.7246&layers=10&b=2). I guess the ground rises more steeply from the Uppingham Road.

I'm probably not going to in Rutland until August so I suspect you'll still get the chance.

Realised that I had not added hedges etc from visit in Feb 2016, so was following that route. I agree entrance is good practice and helps to encourage checking of gates etc in the field.

Overall we seem to have made a very satisfactory impact on mapping this area. I'm continuing to add field boundaries etc towards Long Clawson based on photos taken from the road & earlier walks.

Jerry

Are you sure about node/4020491191. Just checking my photos from Feb 2016 & I think this is a stile adjacent to a gate.

Not to worry: somewhat surprisingly trig pillars are not that well documented. This discussion is useful for helping clarify what should be documented. By a remarkable co-incidence last weekend I also mapped a trig pillar featured on sheet 122 (node/4608321916), so it's helping me too.

My copy of the map has your point with a spot point of 492 ft which is just shy of 150 m. I'd run with either 149 or 150.

Normally for lowland Britain I just transform old OS heights to metres before adding to OSM. You can also add ele:ft=492 but this ain't really necessary.

I've just looked at one example and I would tend to agree with GinaroZ. Shops with an address of the form 10-16 isnt a true interpolated address, because numbers 10,12,14 and 16 dont exist independently. We (Nottingham mappers) stick to using addr:interpolation on single address nodes for things like blocks of flats and would always expect all numbers in the range to be present on the ground.
It would have made sense to discuss this up front.

This is tidal mud, I've gazed at it many times from the London Apprentice.

type=* anything should be avoided as type really should be reserved for relations. I would agree with either of survey_point or survey_point:type as being suitable values.

@PolarBear I think in this case it is your responsibility to reverse the edit. Normally in the UK we use notes for cases where only the type of evidence you had is available of a change. This is particularly true when the data pertains to the operator not the actual amenity (and this is true of much open data such as Food Hygiene rating where the primary key changes with a new operator).

If you want it to appear on the transport map I think you need to put the bus route number in the ref tag, so add ref=6 and then it should appear along the relevant roads. Here's an example from my own area: relation/71283

And I thought you'd just tell me to change my browser locale settings.

Having Dunleary coming up in Nominatim searches instead of Dun Laoghaire seems very anachronistic. But then Kingstown would be a hell of a lot worse!