I a path is a public right of way you can add designation=public_footpath or public_bridleway etc. This helps distinguish any old path from ones which can certainly be used for country walks.

I know the original creator of the path round to the W of the cottage (although not through OSM), and would trust her mapping. The path you've added is on old OS maps as a footpath. Would be interesting to know if anything has changed.

Incidentally, this area, say around Buckleberry & Yattendon, had lots of missing rights of way.

Suspect it's time that some of these Pensic War nodes etc need to be removed! (presumably from 2011 event)

Hi Dyserth,

This tool is a good place to start (I've selected only the intersecting polygon option & pointed it N Wales): http://product.itoworld.com/map/109?lon=-0.17309&lat=51.53694&zoom=13.

I wrote something about these issues a long time ago, but it might still be useful as an overview: http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/exploration-of-bad-polygons.html.

@BCNorwich: this latter statement is incorrect. landuse=farm predates use of landuse=farmland but got used for farmyards. It was therefore decided that a clearer distinction was needed, hence farmland and farmyard. place=farm is something different and should largely be avoided in most parts of Britain.

The idea that by editing tags to some kind of common format will somehow make it easier for data consumers is a pernicious fallacy.

Any use of a speed limit with or without "mph" in the tag will require some form of parsing, error detection and data wrangling. For instance the 11th commonest value is "RO:urban". Other values which need to be deciphered include "none (autobahns in DE I presume), "signals" (M25 etc). Plus the usual tag issues of trailing spaces etc.

As @SomeoneElse says each such edit which adds little to the data and does not really help data consumers makes it harder to deal with genuinely problematic edits.

Before making such changes I would recommend checking against the code base of routers such as Graphhopper, OSRM & mkgmap to see if they have problems with such values. Even then the main place to resolve such problems is in code for consuming the data.

The second problem with changing such values is that you are not addressing issue at source. It is users creating these tags and without persuading the users who are used to tagging it this way, then such tags will continually appear in OSM. Closing the loop involves talking to users, only that will actually improve consistency of tagging in OSM. Even then with free-format tags one always has to anticipate the unexpected.

Patching tags in this way to "make it easier for data consumers" may only encourage some such consumers in unrealistic expectations of OSM data. When their programs fail because of unusual values they'll blame OSM. If they plan around the realities of OSM & program defensively (as anyone who builds DBs from multiple source needs to do) they get the benefits & no surprises.

It's a long time since I was on the Glacier des Rognons but back then the more usual way to start the Haute Route was to traverse under the seracs and the Couloir Cordelier more or less due east towards where the altiport label. This gives a less fatiguing access to the Refuge and allows to climb the Glacier de Chardonnet on the first day (basically a schuss across the flat bit of the Glacier d'Argentiere). In poor conditions it probably has many more objective dangers (serac, avalanche, crevasse).

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You can add the name directly to the existing area marked as a farmyard. As it stands a node with a name will not be visible or searchable. Don't worry too much about this the information is there.

Feel free to ask if you want any further advice or help.

For workflow or temporary tagging I would recommend using something like your username as a prefix thus username:munro=no. Such a scheme can also be used for something intended to be more permanent, but for which a unified tagging scheme is not present. Using a common prefix makes it much easier to find all the tags and manage them separately (e.g., removing them after the task has been completed). They also provide a hint to other users that they are not expected to be used for general consumption.

I have reverted this edit. It reused an existing node which belonged to a street in the Netherlands and therefore created a very long residential road. This alone could possibly have cause service problems by forcing many tile re-renders.

I must ask you not to use the Level0 editor for your edits. This is not designed for use by inexperienced editors.

I also must say that edits using the dwc: tags have caught our attention for a number of reasons: non-standard tags for objects which have millions of uses; data possibly with restrictions which make it not compatible with OSM; and biological observations which are not suitable for storage in OSM.

I may also ask the DWG to place a 0 hour block on your account to ensure that you read this & similar edits.

You seem to have added quite a lot of trees in St James's Square Gardens. In fact rather more than my photos show. For instance there is only one large London Plane inside the circular path. Did you just use Bing to add them?

Adding munro=no, marilyn=no etc. to anything mapped as a peak is rather pointless & just clutters up the database, and is very confusing to people not familiar with any particular class of hills. If you must also add prominence which is more generally useful (for instance for excluding the spot heights which some people insist in adding from OOC OSGB maps).

This is not appropriate data for OpenStreetMap. It also does not comply with either the Imports or Mechanical Edit policy. At one point we had calculated post code centroids from Free the Postcode but these now get removed. However this edit will certainly duplicate some of these elements.

If you want good quality boundaries (& therefore centroids of Postcode Areas etc I recommend the Geolytix open data set).

As this edit has not been: a) discussed on talk-gb; b) mentioned on the imports list; or c) associated with an wiki page describing where the data comes from I am reverting it.

I appreciate that you are a newcomer to OpenStreetMap, and therefore might not be familiar with policies with respect to this kind of edit.

Now done

Yes, I plan to merge them in JOSM too tedious to do in PL2!

Please dont map individual occurences of Epipactis palustris. This is not appropriate information for OSM. Additionally this uses a tagging scheme which does not follow the well-established conventional tags for plants in OSM and natural=wetland is incorrect also. Plant distributions are much better recorded using the pre-existing databases (FloraWeb for instance in Germany).

I'm not clear what you are doing here. For mapping things in OSM you should use OSM tags and not an entirely separate tagging scheme with a very large number of redundant elements (lat/long, province etc). You should not use name, but species or taxon which are very well understood tags. Taxon in particular is designed to align with other external schemas). If the record is shared with an external source you can place a SINGLE tag for this providing any identifier is persistent. A single tag to an external database for taxon would also be OK. Adding very large numbers of tags which convey no extra information will just lead to database bloat.

I'd also like to be know if these data are your own. Use of Level0 to create data does not inspire a high level of confidence that these were actually surveyed. GBIF data itself is not licenced in a way compatible with OSM, and in most cases does not have adequate geographical resolution or quality controls to be a suitable candidate for an OSM import.

I dont actually care very much what the wiki says as it is often inaccurate. We certainly use amenity=social_club extensively in the East Midlands, but I do prefer to use it for places where non-members may be able to use facilities (eg. by paying a notional membership fee or by automatically be signed in as a guest). A good local example would be London Welsh's club house and many golf clubs. This certainly doesn't really apply at Ranelagh although I've been there as a guest when they've been hosting races. Club is therefore probably best.

Hmm, I dont really like this as amenity=community_centre! Is that what the wiki suggests, in which case it moves a long way from the usual meaning of the word in UK. Ranelagh Harriers like most sports clubs are a private members club not a community organisation. I'd suggest amenity=social_club or just amenity=club.

The building tagged Ranelagh Harriers isnt really a sports centre. It's a club house. It should have some club tags.

My problem is with you making large scale mechanical edits without discussing it with the community.