This way you created back in 2015 never got tagged way/374624109. Is it perhaps a better outline of the perimeter of the castle site (currently the cliff lies within the perimeter)?

It would also be good to add the Wikipedia tag if it exists: far easier to sense check a Wikipedia entry (one click rather than several to get to the same place) and the Wikipedia entry is often more useful for mappers than the wikidata one. Jerry

Can you please review all the wikidata tags added here for sense checks. Oldmoor Wood is not a human settlement, and consequently I have removed the wikidata tag as it downgrades the quality of OSM.

Good opportunity to say I've added a few others in NI & East Mids but haven't necessarily added a repd:id tag or updated the main list

Hi Dan, digits swapped for sure.

Surely Enatherm is a power station. This was the former site of Climadef, a power plant for a district heating scheme, which blew up in March 1994. Not long before I started work at Blvd Mission Marchand.

I've just come across this changeset. The first 3 examples I've looked at included a museum and two universities in the middle of streets. From this I would have thought all the relevant objects could have done with being properly scrutinised.

Great that you had your notes to hand. I've fixed my bit now.

Hi Will,

I'd be grateful if you'd check any notes/photos regarding location of 35/35A/37/37A Melford Road. Starting from 1 I get 35 one pair of semis down (hence duplicate 15 & 17), and 39 & 41 are also missing from the numbering. NCC Streetlight data doesn't help (it's all over the place on this stretch). NROSH does have 41 in the right postcode, suggesting this is the last house on left before Caincross Road

I'm sure it's not needed know. Looking at the history I probably drew part of the building as a separate building way with the fixme on, and ended up (perhaps) merging them in the same changeset. You can see that the node count goes up at the same time. So I suspect it's been redundant from the outset. I would guess I anticipated moving over to JOSM for merging such things, but obviously didn't.

Jerry

The wiki IS NOT the definitive guide to tag usage. It usually represents the opinions of a small number of people and may well be not representative of actual practice of mappers on the ground.

highway=service with area=yes has 3000+ uses on OSM in the UK (see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/service#combinations), many of which will be service yards, private driveways when an area has been micromapped,, or, in this example (way/165123160) a specific use-case (a map for a legal case). Removing data which is reasonably accurate & meaningful is very poor practice on OSM, particularly if you do not know the area or why things were mapped. Not every use is the same as ones own, for all we know the person who originally mapped these might have been interested in measuring surface sealing not in the routable road network.

Gigha locally, never Isle of Gigha. it's a gaelicised norse name as are others in the area (e.g., Muasdale), with the "a" bit meaning island, so "Isle of" would be tautologous.

highway=* with area=yes is a perfectly valid, and is very widely used on highway=service & highway=pedestrian. The fact that such areas: a) render in peculiar ways; and b) are hard for routing engines does not mean that they are errors. There are numerous other examples of areas which need to be routable (parkland for pedestrians) so the "routing over area" problem will not go away. The generally acceptable approach is to provide a notional way feature in addition to the area. If the highway is a true linear feature then it is permissible to change highway=primary & area=yes to area:highway=primary. This latter usage is common in Polish cities. Laybys mapped as areas should be changed to amenity=parking, parking=layby. Deleting information on OSM because it is inconvenient is rarely a good policy.

Yup a single diagonal cycleway is pretty much the best way of showing this. It loses a tiny amount of information that these were once through routes, but the current mapping also obscures this & is not accurate. At least it is routable. You can use area:highway to sow the area traversable by pedestrians

Given that this is clearly wrong (blackadder knows why I know that to be so)I suggest a straight reversion.

Hi Robert,

Welcome to OSM. I presume you live near Tamworth Road, Long Eaton or on the Toton side because this seems to fit with your comment. I'm happy to help get this tidied up so it's up-to-date. I only noticed this because you also seem to have inadvertently moved a road in Wollaton Park (Averton Square), and now I have a better idea of what you might want to do I'd like to fix that as well.

I see the houses by the Erewash were added a long time ago, so it's no surprise that stuff has changed.

Regards,

Jerry

Please don't break everyone else's usecases for your own. The way in which ceremonial counties are mapped on OSM has been that way for at least 10 years. By changing these to admin boundaries you confound many other applications. For postcode districts Geolytix used to have a useful shapefile (if a bit over detailed in places). To extract ceremonial counties just run an appropriate query using overpass save as geojson & convert to SHP. (e.g., http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GD but you need to use with overpass &, say wget)

Many thanks!

Hi Tom,

You added this path nearly 7 years ago. Someone is now stating that it is not a path: note/1698169#map=16/51.0244/0.2771&layers=N. It's not shown on the East Sussex definitive map. I just wondered if you can recall any details from when you mapped it.

Regards,

Jerry

Please do not use OpenStreetMap for fantasy maps such as this ski resort. All this data will now be deleted. Can you also use intelligible changeset comments (not a single letter).

Jerry SK53