I'm reverting this edit because it is clearly based on erroneous premises. Spar is a brand of convenience store.

We don't generally give motorways names: these are usually terms which were used to describe the motorway when it was built. These names are not signed, nor in widespread use. Adding such names can interfere with routing applications which use such information for spoken directions. Changing motorway_link to motorway can also have unwanted effects on routing information (for instance routers can no longer identify that the road is a slip road). There is a substantial backlog of discussions about these issues going back over 9 years. The names on the motorways were not lacking we (that is the GB mapping community on the talk-gb list) have at various times discussed this and decided that the name tag is not the appropriate place for such information on OSM. Furthermore if there are no signs showing the highway code then in general we dont show it. You can use admin_ref or official_ref for such things. The reason is that we follow an 'on-the-ground rule : another mapper should be able to go to the location and say "Oh, yes this is the A1058(M) because that's what the signs say".

Oh dear, JOSM overwrote my carefully crated changeset comment.

This changeset actually removed "name=Fermanagh / Tyrone" from individual boundary ways. The use of the name tag was erroneous, and the information is anyway contained in the relations. For safeties sake the information has been moved to a note tag.

The data occurred through a series of missteps prior to complete townland mapping which is why it involves such a large number of ways. Edited via my bulk account because this is a semi-automated edit: i.e., I have not reviewed every way. The only tag which is affected in name, and as name was already occupied there can be no damage done to things like names of roads, rivers and streams.

You seemed to have missed tourism=museum off the Griot

I dont thnk this is technically correct. Local Nature Reserves are an official designation by the local authority. The site is not administered by SWT so they cannot designate it a nature reserve. It obviously has conservation value, and appears to be managed as such by the council & the EA (see http://www.haverhill-uk.com/directory/pages/2029_West_Town_Park.htm). However, that site clearly says it is known locally as either a park or a 'res': I would suggest that park is probably more accurate as I see no evidence of it having specific protections as a nature reserve: clearly stated on the SWT website. It also appears to have a primary function as a flood mitigation area which probably ought to be reflected in the tagging.

Hi & welcome to OSM,

Something has gone a little wrong with your first edit: the information about the memorial garden is on a point rather than the area you have drawn. I imagine you accidentally selected the point (node in OSM speak) before you had finished adding the details of the garden.

BTW you can also add historic=memorial, either to the garden, or if there is a memorial directly as a separate object. Also if it is a war memorial memorial=war_memorial.

HTH,

SK53

Yes, rather obviously!

Two things: UK postal addresses do not contain county names anymore, they are entirely based on postal town & post code. So Hayes, Middlesex and Hayes, Kent are no longer used to disambiguate places in postal addresses as defined by Royal Mail. Second, this is adding abbreviations which is not the normal OSM convention (as pointed out above). Most of these entitites will have an appropriate code (such as those of ONS, ISO & the NUTS codes of the EU) which can be used as a look-up external to OSM

Hi, Welcome to OSM.

I noticed that you added Vegan_options to the cuisine tag for a restaurant in this edit. As the diet:vegan=yes tag was already present this added no new information, but now many people will no longer be able to find this place as a vegan mexican restaurant. I dont think that is your objective.

Yours,

SK53

Many thanks for that.

The post-processing step is what all road routing engines do. See the recent email from Frederik Ramm on talk-gb.

It's also unlikely that you can guarantee that any additional data added will be in a topologically convenient form, or that editors will leave your split streams as is. In other words it's always best to plan for data which is not always in the most convenient format when consuming OSM data. Do drop me an email I'm interested in exploring the options.

We probably ought to find a way to continue discussion elsewhere as this could be long-winded, I've long had trying OSM for hydrography models on my todo list (see http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/floods-of-transient-data.html). The best way is to publish post-processing tools/code as open source so that anyone can do it. It's also possible to create a versioned curated extract; something I do for a couple of data sets on github (e.g., https://github.com/SK53/ua2 which is relatively complex post-processing & https://github.com/SK53/Irish-Vice-Counties which isn't at all, but versioning and consistency are needed). You can contact me by email on SK53 dot osm at gmail dot com.

Welcome to OSM, Thanks for adding the name, but I think it only has one "F" as in Scafell Way. If you know where the path is into the park this would be a neat thing to add too. (I added the park a very long time ago, but never visited to check details).

In general such topological changes should not be done in OSM. Ideally you should create a post-processing chain which does the splits as required (large numbers of routing tools already do this for road networks). Not only is the risk of breaking other things as pointed out above; but breaking a stream into many little sections tends to make it much harder for people editing to work with. In general changing OSM data to make it easier to consume can also make it harder to maintain: it is thus usually frowned on.

I'm reverting the wikidata tag on this element node/268811863. You have attached a generic descriptor to a particular item. The wikipedia article link is reasonable because the bridge is described in the article, i.e., it provides a link for information which could be useful for OSM contributors.

Sorry you feel that way. I can make the edit myself and perhaps you can then see what I have done. We certainly dont want to lose the information you have added, just get it in the right place. AFAIR I only asked for the pitch attribute to be removed, the rest of the tags were accurate, just not in the best location.

Hmm, OSM Multipolygons do not have to obey the GIS Standards & I believe explicitly do not. Dont have all refs to hand, but osm.wiki/Talk:Relation:multipolygon#Touching_inner_rings is a start

Yes it can be deleted. It's not a mistake, but a temporary element which I should have removed once the boundary was complete. It is a very rough approximation of a barony boundary, which I used as a guide to find the proper townland boundaries. It may appear in the history of the barony relations. Now deleted.

This is a difficult one: if there are no signs for the Old Colstonian's RFC then it fails the on-the-ground test, and perhaps shouldn't be mapped at all. If there are visible signs (and they are more likely to be a notice board or similar near the changing rooms) then that is the correct location.

The tagging is wrong. There is clearly not a rugby pitch on the service road entering the school grounds. Please remove this tag. You can use club=sport to show this is a sports club, see club=sport.

The club's website describes the cricket pavilion as their 'club house' http://www.ocsport.co.uk/index.php/location. This is probably the location you should use.

Not updated on Open Data Nottingham which is tedious.

On a similar note no-one has surveyed the former Hope Chapel on Highhurst St which I believe is where the synagogue has moved from Shakespeare St.

Hi & welcome to OSM,

Thank for this. I was actually across the road this afternoon & didn't notice. Do you know if the spiritualists have moved or just closed down?

I'll make one change to your edit which is to restore the info about the church but with tags indicating that it is no longer a church. We find such info very useful for two reasons: it helps avoid the problem of people thinking something is missing when it's actually disappeared; second, the info is often of value in its own right.

Best wishes,

Jerry aka SK53