We have a long standing convention around Nottingham to keep old_name, old_shop etc., because it's often very useful. Certain premises change frequently and sometimes open data (& ones own memory) refers to not the last name, but the one before.

When remapping shops after a couple of years I often refer back to old photographs to ensure I am retagging the right thing.

One other thing, I've noticed that when removing old_* you are failing to remove brand:* tags (which perhaps were not deleted when the original change was made).

Also whatever the wiki says disused:shop is much less precise than shop=vacant. A disused:shop could now be residential as in many former corner shops, a shop=vacant is one which is still a shop (paying the relevant business rates) and is likely to be occupied by a retailer again.

shop=vacant also allowed a simple query to calculate vacancy rates: a key retail parameter.

Jerry

I have always distinguished between the two shop=estate_agent for high street outlets in obvious retail premises where one can walk in browse the listings etc. In the past many were also agents for various financial service companies: I opened my first building society account in an estate agent. I reserve office=estate_agent for the big commercial agents who have offices where you ring a bell see a receptionist and more usually have a booked appointment. These are usually in business (landuse=commercial) parts of towns not in retail areas.

The problem with perceptions of estate agents on OSM is that many countries have a much less competitive market in real estate; estate agents complete fewer transactions at much higher fee rates (~10%). I suspect that estate agents in retail locations are at a lower density in much of Europe & N. America compared with UK (specifically England & Wales).

Making all of them office=estate_agent looses this distinction, and to re-enable it would require introducing another tag estate_agent=high_street or similar (although student rental estate agents are already a significant sub-class).

Jerry

Hi Chris,

I don't think this is Paul's fault as this seems to have become the standard, and if he hadn't done it confusedbuffalo would be along real soon now.

I'm afraid this ship has sailed; I was shouted down when I suggested addr:postal_town for those who want to clone PAF (on the grounds that PAF owns postal towns). So now we have, as you rightly say, the laughable addr:suburb tag (or addr:hamlet, addr:town, addr:village and for all I know addr:neighbourhood). Nominatim seems to make sense of this, but it absolutely conflicts with any local notion of place. It is my belief that this approach breaks many of the different meanings of address (over & above postal addresses) and provides no mechanism to restore them. At the Open Addresses symposium back in 2014 there was general concurrence in a group I was in that addresses are multifacted: the group included representatives of well-known national & international organisations.

In general I always left addr:city blank because of the conflict between actual place & post town. I'm not sure if true local perceptions can be extracted from the data as is. Postal towns could relatively easily be a look-up on postcodes.

Jerry

I think it is important to note that this is also NOT Foston Hall YOI.

No you deleted them in this changeset, they weren't moved, but I now see that these got duplicated. So all OK.

BTW, you can hit "Q" when drawing buildings and it squares the corners. Looks much nicer.

Why are you deleting good data! The solar power are obvious on the roofs of the houses.

Even if you don't think they're useful, other people do: this work was published in a Nature journal, and we have a specific project to track completion of solar power in Britain. OSM is collaborative, which, amongst other things, means not damaging work which is valuable to others.

Instead you could have improved the data my moving the nodes over the houses: often imagery was not good enough for accurate placement 4 years ago.

Are there really two high crosses here? Don't remember seeing two.

Hi,

I know you didn't do the original edit, but can you look at Barnstable MA. The place=town is located at Hyannis/Hyannisport. No-one I know locally calls this area anything other than by the name. Barnstable as a place (vs. admin. entity) is located on the Old King's Highway (Mass 6A). I don't think that the MA 'town of ' construct really fits well with place=town., whereas Hyannis in all respects does (has a CBD, transportation hub, shopping etc.), plus it's a big tourist destination.

I suspect it might lead to unexpected routing & other queries (nice seafood restaurant in Barnstable not found 'cos the wrong one) too.

Historically, I think the bay side of the Cape was settled first, so most of the places which gave rise to admin entities sit along 6A. The labels of all the others seem to be where I'd expect them to be.

Jerry

Please don't create relations like the super_relation here. It's completely unnecessary as it's easy to find all admin boundaries within Northern Ireland, and also not how we do things: osm.wiki/Relations_are_not_categories.

Thanks,

Jerry aka SK53

Reverted (changeset/141419311) at the request of Marcos Dione on IRC. Please ask again if you want to add this islet.

Jerry aka SK53

Yes, rubbish wikipedia edit: ceb is a a well-known set of stubs created by a bot of no value whatsover (worse than useless, because these pages get a high page ranking in searches). The other wikipedia pages are not useful: the Welsh one looks inaccurate, the German one is a redirect to Liathach, and I suspect the Swedish one is the same as ceb.

There's a later FHRS inspection than this edit for the Bridgend Inn so have removed your fixme. It used to be a popular fisherman's pub (with good locally caught sewin) so perhaps a bit less prone to closure than some.

Additionally way/1158676960 is shown on the Carmarthenshire PRoW map as a public bridleway (you can view this by selecting the relevant overlay layer in the editor).

Hi,

The road heading E from Cwrt y Cadno is a public road but is marked as horses being disallowed. Can you check this as it would be most unusual, but also leaves a dangling bridleway going off it just after the road crosses the Cothi.

Thanks,

Jerry aka SK53

Hi Guy,

Sorry if I tagged the wrong changeset: the public bridleway is absolutely fine. It's the paths mapped as bridleways through the heather that concern me. I presume this is open access land which is why there are now so many paths, but that doesn't confer automatic rights for riders.

I'm not sure if there's a simple way to change these (short of going there and establishing which paths are suitable for riders). At present they allow walkers anyway, riders and cyclists will just have to be cautious. I'll ask around to see if anyone else has encountered this scenario (I've done a bit on a grassy common in Berkshire where some paths were mown for riders).

Unfortunately, although I have friends in the area it's a very long time since I visited.

Jerry

Hi,

The paths over Frenni Fach look rather narrow for bridleways. Are these actually in use by riders?

Regards,

Jerry aka SK53

I'm going to revert this as it is completely inaccurate.

The Crusader Island was constructed way before this to enable servicing of the two estates built either side of the A453 which needed better access than that provided previously when Clifton Lane was a more minor road. It was in existence prior to 1992 (inadmissible OSM source). The Crusader itself was opened in 1984 (https://whatpub.com/pubs/NOT/56/crusader-nottingham), also not OSM admissible. There are numerous GPS traces on the OSM site showing it's existence before this and also OS StreetView maps from 2010.

The actual opening of the A453 dualling scheme occurred at a range of times. It was mapped incrementally as it was constructed and opened (see for instance changeset/30021732).

Whereas the entire scheme was probably completed on the date you have added: you don't have enough actual knowledge to provide this information correctly. Changing well-established road classifications in an area which has seen a lot of mapping over the years and therefore likely represents a substantial consensus of mappers is usually to be avoided. In this case it is not clear that you have adequate local knowledge in any case.

Jerry aka SK53

You may need to do some more clean-up on this import. I just came across way/238016257 with an enclosing lake object from the import, Looking at aerial imagery these are just one lake. I'm presuming you did some filtering & comparison with existing OSM elements.

Jerry aka SK53

I've changed this to not:wikidata. The stucture visible in Bing Streetside is clearly not a "dual arched masonry bridge of 1849". As trigpoint says this was demolished when the dual carriageway was built.

For heritage details the wikidata tag is not really adequate on it's own. Please consider adding ref:cadw in Wales or HE_ref in England, and the listed_status=*. These are much more useful for someone verifying OSM data in the field, and allow direct linked data to the actual data originators rather than having to do complex SPARQL queries (which often perform poorly and are inaccessible to most contributors).

Thanks,

Jerry aka SK53

Once again this is incorrect. You have used a site relation, this is not a site. You have not incorporated either the Ningbo or Malaysia campuses.

Did you not think the OSM mappers in this area have not thought of doing something like this, and rejected it. I certainly have on many occasions since 2009. There are other ways to manage finding parts of a university without creating cumbrous relations which will get changed every time one part gets updated.

Please also do not try to adjust areas of individual parts of this university. I maintain the boundaries very carefully based on UK cadastral layers, regular survey etc.