Would it be possible to be a bit more descriptive with changeset comments? "modified railway" doesn't say anything more than is visible from the list of ways modified, and the bounding box covers most of the country. What did you edit? What was the source? Where did you make changes?

Are you sure that way/237824765/history#map=17/53.09581/-1.25298 is public footpath, including the loop at the end? It seems very unlikely. Presumably it connects to way/323904273#map=16/53.0975/-1.2545 and then west from there?

I'm guessing that node/409684580 here either needs to be changed to something or deleted? It just seems to have "Garmin" tags at the moment.

Well spotted and thanks for fixing!

The edit here doesn't match my recollection of the A15 here (albeit from a while ago, in changeset/9714835 ). There are not three parallel roads forming the A15, only 1, which in places has more that one lane.

You've broken the link to the bridleway too. I'd suggest that this changeset is reverted and the lanes detail is added to "lanes" tags.

Fantasy edits like this are extremely demotivating - it's one of the reasons why I no longer survey much in Lincolnshire. Before any positive mapping contribution can be made there's an awful lot of treacle to wade through - previous garbage to remove.

If you're going to map lane detail (which is great!) please do map lane detail as lanes, not as parallel roads. Please also take care not to break existing map connectivity.

If you think that this advice is incorrect, and you think that mapping lanes as parallel roads is a good idea, I'd strongly suggest discussing it on the talk-gb list to get a feeling for what other mappers think about the issue.

Ah, OK - understand now :)

@GerdP - in what way is "highway=consultation" not machine readable? OSM doesn't have a fixed series of tags that people are "allowed" to use. Anyone consuming tags needs to take this on board - there will always be things that you don't understand. Also, the question for tag consumers* is always "what did the mapper mean by this tag" not "what does the wiki say".

* speaking from the perspective of someone who is a data consumer, and also has spent more than a few years in the past in $dayjob dealing with large and therefore dirty data-sets.

Hi - just fixed a minor typo on 3 of the ways here (changed to mtb:scale instead of mtb_scale), hope you don't mind!

Hi - just checking that way/104804935 and way/375469723 are narrow gauge and tram respectively, i.e. we're not talking about e.g. way/104290813 (standard gauge, definitely still in operation just to the east), way/148692767 (narrow gauge, brought into operation within the last 20 years or so to the north) or even way/109947075 (Crich tramway museum, not that far away)? I've not heard anything on the local news about any of the tunnels under the town being reopened (for a tram service?) - I'd have thought that it'd have been big news, the way the ex-railway tunnels near Buxton were when they opened to cyclists.

Oops, following on from changeset/34655400 way/375393621 now has "oneway=no;yes" on it...

In case anyone's not aware, there was previous discussion about some of these tagging questions at https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/37777/rights-of-way-england-and-wales and https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41053/prow-tagging-england-wales . It's actually probably better suited to general discussion on the mailing list where everyone can put their three-pennorth in.

Excellent, thanks.

I notice that you've removed "shop=organic" from node/336510887/history . Did you survey this location to check that as well as being an Italian restaurant it wasn't also an organic shop?
Did you discuss this mechanical edit anywhere beforehand so that anyone with a map that used the tag would know to change it? See osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct for more details.

Hello and welcome ro OpenStreetMap!
I just spotted way/374845005 ("Unknown residential road"). You don't need to make up a name if something doesn't have a name (or you don't know what the name is). Also there's no need to have the road doubling-back on itself, and it should really join at the northeast end. If you have a look at way/222657136 it shows the idea - it goes from one end to another (it actually joins at the end).
Andyway, I hope you don't mind me mentioning this, just trying to help.
Cheers,
Andy

Thanks for fixing!

Hello, Google Satellite can't be used as a source for OpenStreetMap. See osm.wiki/FAQ#What_images_and_maps_may_I_use_to_make_maps_from.3F for more information.

Thanks for that. There were only about 7 "yes=no" in the world so I suspect that they're all fixed now.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap. What exactly is way/374535450 ? It doesn't seem to match anything on the ground.

@DaveF can you explain the problem here? It just looks like a slip of the mouse has joined some ways together (entirely understandable for someone with only a few OSM edits) - or is there another problem?

http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=32249572 might shed more light on what happened here - it shows how the tags on this changed as time went on. I suspect the real problem happened a couple of revisions ago when "beatrice jones" (who has since been banned for repeated fantasy edits) changed an "abandoned railway" into a live running one. That was then changed to "disused" (because it's not a current railway) and then deleted (for the same reason).

The "railway=abandoned" tag is designed for former railway grades where they're still noticeable as a feature in the landscape. You could argue that for some of its length that that's what this was, though for some sections (the urban ones) it doesn't look like there's anything left, and tagging as "railway=dismantled" or deleting entirely (there's still discussion about that).