Will just add that around Flintham this section of road was updated just as soon as practicable after it opened, see my blog post from 6 years ago: http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/along-fosse-way-mapping-new-road.html

Hi Stan,

You changed the tagging on Scalford FP 23 adding highway=footway. Unfortunately this is highly inaccurate: there is a designation line but the line passes through buildings and is totally inaccessible, exactly as my original tagging showed with disused:footway.

Please be careful not to update information which has been carefully surveyed by field walking.

I have returned the tagging to what it was before. I have also received confirmation from LCC that this situation is long standing and will be resolved in "due course". OSM aims to represent what is on the ground and should be more useful to walkers than an OS map in that respect.

Jerry

Very nice, couldnt remember it but just checked my Mapillary photos https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/iEEeGscf-bMROp_PLYWCrQ.

It means I've been guerilla mapped again! See http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/ive-been-guerilla-mapped.html (that post box didnt last very long btw).

This wikidata tag added is erroneous. It refers to Carshalton, not Carshalton Beeches. No doubt because there is no wikipedia article about the latter, merely a re-direct to the Carshalton article. This has then been replicated on Wikidata. I have removed this value as it is wrong. Do please check such items before adding them to OSM.

In the ID editor you can either scroll down until you see a box labelled add field. This will autocomplete with widely used values (such as tourism) and then give you a pick list. For unusual values (e.g., chalet=holiday_cottage) you have to scroll even further down to an area labelled "All tags" which shows the 'raw' values of the tags, clicking on the plus button gives a new row. Put the "chalet" in the left side and "holiday_cottage" on the right side. It will be understood that the chalet on the lefthand side is a clarification of the tourism=chalet pair. HTH

Hi Susan, Unfortunately someone decided that tourism=chalet should mean holiday cottages too (probably by some daft extrapolation from the Swiss Alps, where chalets are often large buildings with several separate apartments). Often tags are invented by non-native English speakers or by people who dont check on British usage which is the agreed standard fr tags.

So I agree with you, but the current tagging is tourism=chalet & then it shows up as a tourist feature. You could always add chalet=holiday_cottage which gives the chance to separate them out from ones in Butlins etc. Jerry

place=farm is generally not regarded as a valid/useful tag in the UK. Standard practice is to map actual farms with landuse=farmyard and ones which are now residential (lots) with landuse=residential. Sometimes place=locality may also be used if widely used (remote highland areas). In most of lowland Britain farms locations are a result of enclosure and so are recent & not representatives of historically used placenames. The exceptions are mainly the (highly inaccurate) work of one mapper who has been asked to desist but does not respond to messages. I'm sure this has been discussed on talk-gb several times in the past.

This is an import, I'm not aware it has been discussed on the imports list or at talk-gb. OS Vector Map District is not suitable for building imports: the buildings are generalised so that several detached houses are combined into one. You are better off tracing the outlines from OSSV, still not very accurate, but usually better than OSVMD. Even the newer OS Local Map buildings are still too generalised. Other problems with this as an import include imported buildings with footpaths running through them. This sort of thing is precisely why we have an imports policy.

This is one of a number of edits which seem to be large scale & should follow either or both the automated or mechanical edit policies (osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct) Please try & reply promptly as to your reason for these edits. These edits are likely to be reverted as they do not appear to conform to these policies.

Removing tags which you deem redundant may inconvenience many other data consumers. The cost of an explicit tag over an implicit one is minimal (and much less than storing the previous & current versions of the data).

Isnt this really a Casa de té not a coffee house?

Hi Luke,

Many thanks for adding this info to OpenStreetMap. I have a few suggestions which may make the edit more useful:

1. There are several buildings on the site. Presumably the original Harston Lodge is the house in the centre. Individual buildings can be mapped and addresses added.
2. We have a tag craft which could be used to add information. You could use craft=guitar_repair instead of/or as well as office. See craft=*#Craft
3. The driveway to Harston Lodge is currently marked as a track (mapped by someone passing on the main road). It looks to me that it could perhaps be better mapped as a driveway (tags highway=service, service=driveway) which would also mean better routing for any one who wished to find your premises via OSM.

This is quite a lot of different things, they should improve the visibility of your business on OSM and OSM-derived apps & maps. However, I'm interested in tapping into your local knowledge, and am willing to help out. OSM thrives by having this kind of local detail.

Despite what the wiki say, sidewalk=none is actually the preferred tag. key=yes|no are best used in binary situations; whereas sidewalk=yes broadly means I have noted there is a sidewalk on at least one side of the street, sidewalk=no is presumed to mean a definitive survey statement which does not fit with the both|left|right values. The number of sidewalk=no values will be inflated by edits such as yours. I'm sure most consumers will handle both values so no harm done.

We do have an important principle in OSM: respect for fellow contributors. You are distinctly failing to show that respect to me or others. Quite frankly I think we are better off without your arrogant attitude and unwillingness to collaborate.

The reason why the note has not been cleared is that someone has not made the journey to S. London to check if "Lonesome" is signed or otherwise visible on the ground. We value actual real surveys which can be checked by others. Contrary to your opinion this is a strength, not a weakness of OSM.

Please let me assure you that any further changes you make with respect to place nodes will be referred to the Data Working Group.

Thank you. I know perfectly well what Nominatim is: the current maintainer is a friend.

For this sort of issue you should be filing issues on the Nominatim github pages https://github.com/openstreetmap/Nominatim/issues. I suspect that the issue is known, but we have too few developers and maintainers to resolve such problems.

Nominatim is just one of thousands of applications consuming OSM data; there is a well understood rule of editing OSM data "Don't edit for the Renderer" (and this applies to routing software, geocoders etc). For instance by changing these nodes you probably break the searches on Garmin devices which use the same data.

Lastly, "be bold" is a wikipedia policy not generally one advocated for OSM. Consensus is valued: and when thousands if not millions of people have been able to use the data without changing it that implies a very substantial consensus. Additionally your edits were discussed by a small number of experienced editors, and the view was that given the significance of the changes it was important to revert them quickly before corrections were made piecemeal. Normally we like to give the original editor a chance to discuss their edits before doing a reversion. In this case the next person to notice the accidental substitution of suburb for Ilford would have made restoring the original data rather more complex.

That is not to say that there may not be oddities: it's best to highlight these using the notes feature. See for example this note note/547502#map=15/51.4096/-0.1310&layers=N

Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets.

Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets.

Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets.

Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets. In this one you also changed Ilford's name to "suburb"

Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets.

Undiscussed major change. Will be reverted.