Thanks for the warning.

Hmm, had a quick search and cant see anything particularly dramatic, other than one or two ways with y=Texas, MO. This tag should be deleted (it's one of the useless TIGER Tags). Perhaps you caught any real nasties.

Shame its another yurp person doing the spotting!

Appears to relate to this closure notice: http://derbyshire.gov.uk/applications/rights_of_way/TempClosures/TC2129.pdf & https://derbyshire.gov.uk/leisure/countryside/access/rights_of_way/path_closure_register/search_the_register/details.asp?AppID=4807&men_1975=Swarkestone

There are several simple rules of thumb which you ignored:

1. Am I improving the semantic value of OSM by changing a tag. Moving something to a note does not do so.
2. Has the tag been accepted by other mappers. In this case several mappers had made changes to the object without changing the maker key.
3. If it aint broke dont fix it.
4. If the meaning of a tag is obvious (as this one is) and you do not know of a more widely used alternative leave it alone.
5. If you are not clear about the intentions of the original tagger, ask them! That's why we have a messaging system & changeset comments.
6. Local knowledge and mapping things by visiting places results in better mapping than global edits. Informing people in an area of possible alternatives to tags they use, helps everyone.
7. Tags with low usage numbers are not intrinsically wrong, just not used very much.

This has already been reverted, we will check other changesets made around the same period and may revert those. Please do not remove tags with a small number of values unless a) they are obvious typos, or b) you have checked with the people who added the tag/local editors.

Can I second this, and add I have sent you a PM about other deletions.

Certainly was!

Also for the business you can add things like website=www.somebusiness.com (or whatever), telepone=0123456789 and opening_hours=Mo-Sa 09:00-18:00 (or whatever), all of which while not showing on the main OSM site get picked up by other OSM-based products. Also adding postcodes (usually as addr:postcode) can be very helpful as it works towards having more information of the type people with SatNavs like. Feel free to ask more.

You might want to add something a bit more than just the name to this edit if you want it to show up. Simply adding building=yes would be a start. I note that there is John Deere supplier at this location, so shop=agricultural_machinery might also be something of use. HTH

Many thanks for such a comprehensive first edit. I'm impressed that you added tags for things like desire line paths. It's particularly nice to have additions in this area: there's still a lot to do in Nottingham itself so none of us do that many trips to map this far from the city.

I have one small request: when mapping public rights of way could you also add a designation tag (designation=public_footpath, public_bridleway etc). Not only does this enable production of outputs which are familiar to users of Ordnance Survey paper maps, but helps plan survey work to map missing paths. For some background on East Midland footpath mapping and mappers see @dudone/diary/34437, or something I wrote about Hickling http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/looking-for-footpaths-in-hickling-notts.html (there's other stuff on my blog too).

I have removed the address tag as it is clearly incorrect. To do so I used FHRS Open Data to add addresses to the mapped POIs along Clayport and Market Streets. The addresses are in the 30s at the junction with Clayport Street. Furthermore a simple web search shows Cafe Delicious at 39 (but this data may not be admissable to OSM). I would suggest following a basic rule about adding things like addresses from notes or user reports, which is ensure that there is an independent piece of evidence to support the statement in the note. Also always be very cautious about using the placement of the note as a source of precise geolocation.

Interesting, possibly an editor bug in potlatch 2.0, or a keyboard glitch (which I've noted in past couple of days), or just possibly a case of editor not loading everything. I was almost entirely using the simplify option to reduce the node count on TIGER imported ways, which then makes it WAY easier to then improve their geometry. So I dont think I was doing any specific node edits & AFAIK the simplify method doesnt touch nodes with tags or more than one owner.

As a (very) former resident it's good to know someone is keeping an eye on the Pittsburgh area.

Wow, what a lot of nice extra data! Goes to show there is always something new to add.

Please dont use landuse=industrial for oil fields! This is not what the tag is intended for. Only use this for discrete installations within the area (see the example I have mapped just outside Esperanza, Santa Cruz).

These woods along these river valleys do not exist. Yes there are patches of willows, and some willow scrub in places, but these are tiny. In populated places there will be rows of poplars to act as windbreaks. Otherwise this is Patagonia one of the famous treeless places in the world. Having recently travelled along these valleys I know how rare trees actually are. I will try and add some sequences on Mapillary.

Also the way is much too large, such that it is impractical to edit in some editors.

I note with some dismay that you retagged a node labelled waterway=waste_disposal to amenity=waste_disposal. These actually have different meanings. waterway=waste_disposal is a particular facility only available to key-holders on canals, and is quite separate from things usually tagged as amenity=waste_disposal. Global edits of things with which you are not familiar require a) at the very least consulting the original mapper to check that the meaning they intended is the same as your re-tagging and b) ensuring that any information contained in the tags is not lost.

I know this was a very long time ago, but we were wondering why you added numbers as names to a number of nodes between Fritchley and Crich? Any chance you can remember what they signify?

Yes they should. When they connect to roads then they can be used for routing on foot (something I use OSM for all the time).

If it's a public right of way its also good to add designation=* and then we have it documented. I presume Staffords Acre is a relatively new road.

I would also point out that even if the comment said "path is misaligned" your edits did more than this they changed the tagging in such a way that the quality of the data was degraded. In practice you turned entirely usable routeable data (highway=footway) into non-useful, only routeable with considerable post-processing data. The path mis-alignment had already been edited, perhaps by your informant, before your own edit. I checked it out and it seemed valid: you should have checked for recent edits.

This edit also seriously misinterprets the aerial imagery. The very name "Terrace" in this part of Britain suggests a street not accessible by cars. The N half of what is labelled Gladstone Street looks very like this: there is an obvious change in surface on aerial photos, and on the S half there is an obvious barrier, so this is clearly incorrectly mapped with highway=residential. The mapping prior to this edit reflected what is visible in aerial imagery much better.

It's a real shame that MapBox are keeping 'issues' private when making them available to local mappers is likely to result in a better map for all.

Yeah amazed that you thought to change this. This area was recently edited by at least 2 people with genuine local knowledge highway=path is not widely used locally in the UK because we find footway/track/bridleway/cycleway meet 95% of usecases better than path.

I get a 404 on the link given. This is inadequate documentation for this remote edit in an area which actually has a reasonable coverage by regular mappers.