AFAIK this was discussed recently either on the UK mailing list or on talk-gb. As noted by John Grubb at the very least leave the existing tags in place as these are rendered.

In general we prefer that people discuss this type of change with the local community: not everything flagged by KeepRight is an error and tagging practices differ between countries.

Wrong comment: actually merged buildings & nodes of pub & social club to improve element legibility

OSM is very much about local input, something which looking at aerial images can't beat. And there certainly is a gradation between parks and recreation grounds anyway. So I'm very happy to defer to your knowledge here.

You can actually take the foopaths right to the main road. Dont actually worry that this is not in the park. It's what we call topological accuracy: it shows you can walk from the main road along the path into the park. When shown on the OSM map it's not noticeable because roads are drawn over paths.

I've just tried it out, and am surprised to find that it's not directly supported in the editor. You certainly did the best thing then. I'm asking the lead developer of the editor whether they can support landuse=construction.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I notice that you've been adding lots of footpaths in the countryside. If you are familiar with these (i.e., not using Google or similar search engine or OS Maps) it's very helpful to label those which are actually Public Rights of Way with the designation tag (see designation=*#Rights_of_way_in_England_and_Wales). For more generally about footpath mapping in Britain see http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/10-years-of-footpath-mapping-for.html.

Looks awfully like someone's garden (you? perhaps).

Reverted because not a park.

Thanks for adding these details. You can connect the footpaths to the surrounding roads and then they are routable.

I'm not sure that I'd call this a park, rather a recreation ground. This is incidentally what Bradford council call it in their official data, and also give it the name Haworth Road Playground, with the area to the S of the road being Haworth Road Recreation Ground.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The University of Nottingham is already mapped in considerable detail and we use "university" not school. If you wish for chinese names to be added you can let me know.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Parks, Playing Fields etc., are better mapped as areas rather than points.

The footpath you've added has foot=yes which overrides the general access=private. If this is just a private path for residents to access their back gardens (e.g., for dustbins etc), then it's best with just access=private. Footway implies its only accessible for pedestrians anyway.

If there are gates at either end it would be nice to see those added too: then it's clearer that not just anyone can use it as a cut-through. This sort of information is important there are 100,000s of people who use OSM data for personal navigation.

Thanks, I really need to get round to adding more buildings here.

Many thanks for this update.

Just to let you know that you can also tag this with landuse=construction and construction=residential which means exactly the same as "(under construction)". It also helps mappers because landuse=construction is always a sign to check for changes.

Thanks for keeping OSM up-to-date.

You may not have realised but Points of Interest can be on areas as well as points and the De Montfort Hall you added duplicates the information already on the building. I've removed this duplicate.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and what a good sensible way to start out.

If you want practice creating roads etc there are a couple of other things which are quite good to add without any risk are : unmapped car parks and especially the parking aisles in big car parks. There are usually always a few around in any area, they show up nicely on the map when added, and they can be useful too.

Many thanks for contributing to OSM.

I thought the shape of the park looked familiar, so I've taken the opportunity to extend the park to match the added path.

You havent connected the two ends of the path at the bottom of the park. Is this the way it is in reality? If it isnt connecting them up will allow people to use this for navigation.

I've also added the road into the park from Wensleydale Road and the parking area: but this is on the basis of very old memories.

It might be worth separating out the church part so that it can be shown separately (and found by people looking for a church). Is it a different part of the building or a separate room?

Also it could probably do with religion=christian and denomination=* (if the church belongs to a particular denomination or faith tradition)

OpenStreetMap is used in real life by millions of people. Please dont use it for doodles: only map things which exist. If you're hoping for Pokemon mapping real things works much better.

I've deleted this.

Certainly remove the administrative value for boundary. Perhaps replace it with boundary=planning_area for now. Administraive boundaries get pulled into notional addresses which is how I noticed it in the first place.

In general stuff like this is not a great deal of use in OSM. Even if you have a specific need for the boundary its often easier to put this in a umap instance.

One aspect that this edit did highlight is that I dont know that we have any good way to denote city centre areas in OSM.

There's plenty of stuff which can be added in Liverpool. Had hoped to do a bit myself last year, but only got as far as a couple of pubs on London Road behind the Empire.

What I presume were the Water Gardens were replaced by the current housing around 2011, as can be seen on Ordnance Survey mapping http://os.openstreetmap.org/#zoom=18&lat=52.373508&lon=1.103004

A couple of requests:

a) please avoid edits which cover such a large part of the world
b) please use an intelligible source name for imagery used

I presume you do not have any local knowledge about the diverse areas included in this edit. It is therefore important that other contributors can see that the source you used is a suitable source for OSM. From the URL this looks like a proprietary layer from MapBox (possibly an error reporting one). At present it is totally unclear whether the source you used is valid for OSM or your inferences about the roads are justified.