B&M Bargains or B&M Homestore? They've got (at least) two brands in the UK.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I've noticed that you've added a new node node/3870532395 with a changeset comment of "Toll bridge (both directions)".

There already were toll booths for each of the four lanes, for example:

node/1311756547

They don't show up on the "standard" map, but anyone using OpenStreetMap data can avoid toll boths if they want. For example, the Satnav in my car (which uses OpenStreetMap data) will avoid these toll booths if I tell it to).

Hi,
Just in case you weren't aware there are tags in fairly wide use for bird and wildlife hides - see http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=hide#values .
You don't need to give things a name (such as "Access to wildlife viewing point") unless something really has that name - no need to create a name for OpenStreetMap. There's a bit more infomation at osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only . Hope you don't mind me mentioning this, just trying to help - any questions please don't hesitate to ask.

In what way was the changeset that you reverted here "abusive"? It just looks to me like someone uploaded the Learnosm test data (see https://github.com/hotosm/learnosm/issues/335 ) by mistake.

Just for info, this got added at (and deleted from) latitude 0, longitude 0 - presumably a problem with POI+. You may want to add it again in the correct location?

This is a worldwide edit with no changeset comment and no source. How are local mappers supposed to work out what changes have been made in their area and what the source was? If their previous tagging was incorrect, how will they know not to use it next time?

"source=wiki" here would suggest that you haven't actually surveyed any of the shops here individually but are just doing a search-and-replace from one tag to another. What research did you do to find out whether any one individual change was correct? For example, how did you check node/1537067571/history , which could refer to any sort of diving?

Also, did you contact previous mappers explaining the change you made, so they won't try and use shop=diving in the future?

(for the benefit of anyone stumbling across this change) most of the discussion of this was on changeset/35457641 .

It looks like you misunderstood what's happened here. The story's on changeset/34676257 , so I've changed it to building=telephone_box in line with that. No idea what's in this one though.

@abc26324 Would it be possible for you to explain a bit about adding road route relations in the UK? There's a discussion on talk-gb currently https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-December/thread.html#18073 and the most that's been said in their favour so far is "they do no harm". It would be really helpful if you could put your side of the story there too explaining what they're useful for.
It would also be really helpful if you could use changeset comments to explain what it is you're changing and what the source is. OpenStreetMap is collaborative; we have to work together to try and create the best map. Not using changeset comments (and not replying in changeset discussions such as this one and others) makes it difficult for everyone else to understand what it is that you're trying to do.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hi, thanks for that. The underlying track was originally from a very iffy GPS trace that duplicated some others; previous non-local mappers have removed the duplicates. In reality, the whole needs surveying to see what really exists and what does not. Errors reported by QA sites and JOSM can be useful when looking for things locally that need a survey; I tend not to "fix" stuff just to make QA errors go away for that reason.

Hi - I think that this changeset was a bit larger than you might have intended just for "buildings and addresses in Mönsheim" :)

Any idea what the change in Sherwood Pines was (particularly in the area of
way/328470078/history )? I'm assuming that the source was survey since you can't actually see anything through the trees - would that be correct?

I'm trying to gradually go through those paths and work out which ones really exist, which ones don't exist, and which exist but need a trail_visibility tag adding. The ones with implausible geometry (like this one was originally) are obviously candidates to look at first). Now it's no longer in that category, it'd be nice to know whether it still needs checking.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend

@GerdP er, what? The "rarely used tag highway=crossing" has 1.6 million examples in the database. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=crossing .

@GerdP if you'd like to discuss this with the editors of iD you're welcome to, and I'm sure that they'd gladly point you at the _tons_ of discussion that has taken place about the level of interaction that is appropriate for users who may be new to OSM. Personally I see far more "invalid edits" locally to me (Notts/Derbys) from JOSM users reacting to a warning and not understanding the data than I do errors by new iD users.

Of course; we can't use Bing Maps or Google Maps for copyright reasons :)
However, in this case I can confirm that the speed limit on the A45 (at least the other side of Ryton on Dunsmore a couple of years ago) was indeed 50 mph. However maxspeed=80 (in km/h) is of course the same as "mapspeed=50 mph". There are plenty of West Midlands local mappers, so I'm sure they will correct if wrong (and quite possibly change the anomalous tagging that you spotted to highway=speed_camera - if there's still a speed camera there of course; in three years it might have moved).

Just for info in case you haven't seen it, there was a problem with the Tanzania boundary this morning:

http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=564268#p564268

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.openstreetmap.org%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fpid%3D564268%23p564268&edit-text=

It looks like something's gone wrong with way/383968649 (it's currently a relation with one mis-shapen outer). It currently doesn't include Vicar Lane itself, which it should (if you've been there you'll know that the street, and the bottom bit of the street to the north, are clearly styled as part of the development).

There were two bits to it - deleting duplication and adding prow_ref. There's a bit more duplication just to the west - I've added note/477560 for that. It'll need a proper survey to fix though - no point in doing an armchair edit just based on some old imagery.

It's always tricky where there are overlapping concepts. Confusion in the area of amenity=pharmacy has been noted before several times, including https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-May/036621.html , osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dpharmacy#Why_amenity.3Dpharmacy_and_not_shop.3Dpharmacy.3F and also on that page at osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dpharmacy#Distinguish_from_shop.3Dchemist . Note that in English "pharmacy" and "chemist" have some potential overlap, and also note that http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=chemist has 15k uses worldwide. It's probably true that your 70 changes here may have been better tagged as something else, but as what?
An automatic change from one tag to another misses the opportunity to engage with the previous mapper of the "wrong" tag, to explain the problem and help them not use the wrong tag again. It also removes the chance for other local mappers to see the issue (a strange tag) and look for other potential problems nearby or by the same mapper.
By the way, the "talk" link from osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct works for me (from the English page, at least) and the page does say that it covers "use of find-and-replace functionality using a standard editor such as JOSM or using an XAPI service where the changes are not reviewed individually". You could argue what "reviewed individually" means of course; in the case of an obvious misspelling (perhaps "highway=pirmary") that isn't part of a systematic error on the part of a mapper there's no harm in "just fixing it". However here it misses the chance to explain to new mappers how they can find out about tags that other people are using (using http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org ) and answering any other questions that they might have.

Your change here didn't restore which bit was previously track and which bit footway - it changed it from being "all wrong (but obviously so)" to "half wrong (and not obviously so)". Since it's pretty straightforward to find out what was originally what I've done that in changeset/35716342 .