Hi, any reason why you moved Tor y Foel node/1545868470 here? I was only there last month and moved it to the actual location on the ground. You've moved it to the west a bit.

Was the sign still visible on the bit that joins the layby? It was very obvious when I was there a couple of years ago (all the more so for being an excellent comedy name).

It might also be worth asking the author of changeset/21003839 (which removed the name from the western bit).

The name _was_ signed (at the west end) two years ago, and that was after the new bypass was built, but before changeset/21003839 .

Thanks - I'lll have a look at it. There are a few "roads within roads" created by the original mapper here that need tidying up.

Thanks

This is another tag change that makes no sense. On node/3584313770/history you've changed source:ref:name to source_ref:name , despite there being a source:ref key but no source_ref.
Changes such as this suggest that you are making no attempt to understand the underlying data, and are simply making changes using mechanical rules. You should be aware that mechanical edits such as this should be documented and discussed with the community beforehand: osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct .

In the case of this one node, it might have been easier to simply ask the previous mapper about it, which I can see from looking at changeset/31855597 that you did not do.

On way/3063948/history you've changed "source:prow:ref" to "source:prow_ref" despite the ":prow:ref" existing and ":prow_ref" not. This makes no sense :)

To me it looks like a school project - I've just posted this to the local list:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-co/2015-November/003924.html

It'll all need fixing of course (so thanks for doing that!) but I suspect that it'll all happen again next year unless the local OSM community can liaise with the teacher who's running the course.

It'd also be nice if we could figure out what they were trying to map in the first place and help them map that - but that'd need to be sorted out by people in Colombia. There are still some issues from last year left, including uppercase street names.

Did you manage to work out what the mapper was trying to map here? way/378759449/history looks like it might have been an attempt at a bus route to me . As I'm sure you're well aware, there are lots of other problems in this area - see way/377730157 for example and also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-co/2015-November/thread.html .

youth_club is not equivalent to community_centre, If you define it the way that you define it the 100 of http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/community_centre%3Afor=juvenile is the revelent comparison.
In this particular case are you sure that this example is community_centre:for=juvenile rather than community_centre:for=child ? If you're not sure, perhaps a changeset discussion comment explaining the tagging that you propose, or an OSM note, would be better than just changing it to something that might be wrong?

Thanks. I use that car park fairly regularly during the winter, so should get a chance to check.

Sorry, that should be "many of the notes", not "any of the notes", of course.

Thanks. I have seen Hilton make changes to existing hotels though, hopefully they'll remember the contents of the previous PM :)

The information's actually useful for both sets of people. I wouldn't describe "nobody recognises this place" as a "description" - a description would be "a small platform in the middle of the sea".

Also, there's no rule that says that notes can't contain information of general relevance - any of the notes in OSM about objects are useful both to mappers and non-mappers alike.

Is node/3815077900 really a "locality"? It sounds like a bit of a stretch to me...

This is a changeset with a very large bounding box. How do I know whether you've actually changed anything near me in here?

Hello, what does "Fix places (nadoloni)" in the changeset comment mean?

Is it perhaps worth asking about the source of the "%kml:guid" keys such as on node/3687543449 ? It doesn't sound like something that it's possible to verify. A quick check of the creating changesets suggests a common factor may be the editor "Merkaartor 0.18 (de)". Maybe rather than just changing the tags on individual nodes it would make more sense to mention it to the mappers concerned, or to the (recently revived) Merkaartor project http://merkaartor.be ?

Alll of the objects here look like they were added by Hilton themselves - did you contact them about this change? If not, the next time that they add a key I'm sure that they'll use the "wrong" key again...

It's not really clear what "#to-fix:highwayhighway" means (though I see you've tried to clarify that in the changeset source). A more descriptive changeset comment would explain to people what you've done and where. Also, using a smaller bounding box would prevent your changeset appearing in the history list of mappers everywhere - for example, I can't immediately see from it what changes you've made to Derbyshire, England.