Just wondered - should node/3615083688 be "Lick" or "Lock"? The lock itself is already mapped as way/346989369 ("Kegworth Deep Lock"), with lock gates node/817359042 and node/1295808208 . Is there really a third lock gate in the middle too?

Re the mini-roundabout, I'm not sure (despite only walking past last Sunday afternoon)! Add a note or a fixme - someone will pick it up.

Alas, I don't think that there is an flagpole called "Isfahan" here. :(

What there is is a NOAA buoy - node/3870646160 . It even has its own website - http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=13010 , with current weather and everything!

Alas, I don't think that there is an island here. :(

What there is is a NOAA buoy - node/3870646160 . It even has its own website - http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=13010 , with current weather and everything!

Hi - if way/30622739 isn't an operational ferry right now then I wouldn't tag it as "route=ferry" - I'd use some sort of lifecycle tag to explain the current status (or in the case of a ferry route, perhaps not map it at all?).
"disused:route=ferry" has 5 uses in the UK:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/disused%3Aroute=ferry
Maybe that's the one to go for?

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I noticed this edit and just happened to spot that way/332351666 isn't actually joined to the roads to the north and south. This means that any routers using OpenStreetMap data won't be able to route along this road. If you like any help I'm sure people would be glad to assist - I'd suggest asking over at the talk-au mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au .
Cheers,
Andy

Are you sure that 35976222 and the bit to the east is really all bridge, even the bit where the track at node/3358060649 crosses it? I can't remember walking down it (though I've been to both ends) so can't help. It seems unlikely, but this is Lincolnshire.

The previous mapping of "designation=right_of_way" here was based on the signage (as of June 2014) - I should have added a specific source for it! I suspect that it'll only get "fixed" when DCC decides to properly classify what sort of right of way it really is, and signs accordingly. There are already somewhat unofficial-looking signs north of the Lathkill suggesting no vehicular access to the ford, so I'm guessing when DCC get through their CROW act backlog it'll end up as a bridleway. It's a bit like way/230688755 , although the signage here is "right of way" not "public right of way".

For completeness, the change as shown by osmhv:

http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=36008619

You changed way/170366314/history from joining to Warwick Road to not joining to Warwick Road. Are you sure that this is correct? My recollection is that there are no new-build estates north of Sleetmoor Lane; I suspect the houses have been here for at least 20 years. I'm pretty sure though that a footpath doesn't go through a building (although way/135473044 , not that far away, does!). If you're unsure and haven't actually surveyed the area, perhaps a better approach rather than guessing would be to add an OSM note explaining the problem and what needs checking? There are local mappers, so it will get picked up.

Something seems a bit odd here. way/259614896 is grassland, but it's also part of way/385502882 . Is wood correct for this bit of Clumber (I haven't been to this bit south of the lake for ages so maybe adding a note would be the best way forward?).

node/3898807351 seems to be a duplicate node of node/3480997825 .

Also what does "remove self intersection" actually mean - what was intersecting with itself, and why was that a problem?

This seems to add a stile to the River Stour relation. Has something perhaps gone a bit wrong?

Hi,
I've reverted it, and undeleted the bar node/3898185143 . Is everything OK now?

There isn't a way to revert whole changesets via either of the web editors, but there are a couple of ways of doing it externally, such as with JOSM's "revert changeset" plugin.

People look at local recent changeset discussion comments and so mentioning something there is one way to ask for help; another would be to ask in one of the IRC channels. See osm.wiki/IRC - there are people in the #osm and #osm-gb IRC channels most of the time.

Oh (belatedely) - welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I (and I suspect most mappers) have never needed to look at the wiki to see what the word "survey" meant. The page you reference was mostly edited by Xxzme (since banned from the wiki) and is therefore (as you've said) now of limited usefulness.

OSM doesn't "require" anything, but it'd be rather nicer if you were more honest about the sources used. If you've never visited a place and are guessing based on secondary sources, it'd be nice to say so.

Re note/484613 and the change to relation/4085184/history I'd suggest that you talk to the author of the tags concerned, which I believe is Hilton Hotels themselves. That way they'll not add the "wrong" tag next time. Also there seems to be some tag duplication between relation/4085184/history and way/79612055 .

@Polarbear You say "from interviewing staff" above - staff of what and where? "local survey" has a clearly understood meaning within OSM - "that I went there and had a look". You seem not to have done this.

What, specifically, was the source of way/384455589 ? It's inside a building so it can't have been overhead imagery.

Hi, I asked over at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/1239 again to see if there was a way of dealing with coincident ways in iD yet, and it turns out there isn't. I've deleted a bit of overlapping road, and you can now get at the bit of track way/385248573 that you might want to delete or merge with the piece north or south. The national park boundary relation/2176657 was originally added as a fairly crude boundary - have a look over at e.g. way/162867421#map=19/53.11121/-1.65726 to see the effect. Originally the boundary relation was made up of separate "boundary=national_park" ways such as way/162867421 ; the only bit that isn't is the corner near you. However, it actually looks OK (in that it appears to be a complete ring) so I'd leave it as is for now.

You can check the status of the national park by looking at the "analyze" link from the wiki page osm.wiki/Peak_District , the URL for which in this case is http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=2176657 .

(re access tagging on restricted byways) here's one that I tagged over to the east:

way/338193078

The "bicycle", "foot", "horse", "motor_vehicle" and "vehicle" tags are designed to make it easier for any people or maps that don't understand "designation=restricted_byway" (technically you can use a horse and carriage on a restricted byway, but not a motor car).

(re the "access=not specified") I can see what's happened now - it is confusing!

To remove a specific key such as the default "All" access one you have to select the value at the right and tnen delete it. Confusingly, it then says "All Not Specified", very similar to the "not specified" if you type those words in. To remove a particular value, just select it and delete it.