As an outdoor-only space serving drinks, the "biergarten" tag (often misused) seems appropriate here. But feel free to comment or edit if bar or pub is a better description.

Hi, There is a bus stop in this changeset which doesn't look right in the middle of that field. Do you have more information on it or can it be deleted? Thanks.

Apologies, I didn't explain myself properly. I didn't mean it should be tagged as a restaurant, but the opposite (college halls are not restaurants, common rooms are not café). Honestly, I wouldn't tag it as an amenity at all. At a stretch, it could be a club (club=*). Otherwise, probably better, it is just a room (indoor=room).

I think both JCR and what they call GCR (graduate) are in the same staircase, on different floors.

All the best.

Hi. I don't think tagging a college common room as a café is a good idea. It is not accurate and it can be misleading for the general users (especially in a place open to tourists). It would be like tagging a dining hall as a restaurant.

Eastwyke (Typo in the changeset description only)

The names might be a bit too niche in their purely local interest. If anybody has thoughts on whether they should be tagged at all, please let me know.

Thanks, that's helpful. Outdoor seating with sand surface makes perfect sense.

I also make a note that it might be a rather academic question (at least for this case -- it probably comes up in other cities), since I am not sure this beach project should still be on the map, but since it is a seasonal thing, it can only be verified in the summer.

Thanks. It's some old tagging. Do you have a suggestion for how best to tag an artificial urban beach (_not_ a playground sandpit)? natural=sand seems widely used for sand cover in man-made situations. For the "beach" part, maybe something in the "leisure" realm would be a better description?

Yeah, that map just includes all nature parks. I also checked that Barracks Lane was already existing with that name when this parcel of land was still part of the larger playing fields. I believe "Barracks Lane Meadow" is the more accurate name. If you think "Barracks Meadow" is also used by people locally (and not just you), we can include it as an "alt_name" tag.
I think the changeset can be reversed, but it's easier to just edit it again.

I meant "Barracks Meadow", in the second quote, sorry.

Hi. Do you have a source for the changed name? The council website uses "Barracks Lane Meadow" (https://www.oxford.gov.uk/directory_record/884/barracks_lane_meadow), which seems to be also commonly used judging from an online search, while "Barracks Lane" is not. Is it perhaps an older form, or do you have more information? Thanks.

Hi. This changeset introduced an error. Now the whole path is mistakenly tagged as a bridge. The different sections cannot be merged together: There are at least two small bridge sections in this path. Additionally, there is a boardwalk inside the nature reserve which could also be tagged as bridge (I think it wasn't before).

Information about the PRoW is valuable (thank you!) but I wouldn't include it as the name.

Hi. Thanks for those city council references.
It seems that the choice is between the stricter legal status (mapping the SSSI) and what is possibly a more locally-relevant use (as managed by the Council, and probably as understood by most people, since a road is a natural dividing line).

Some more pieces to the puzzle:
- the Oxford City Council website states that Longbridges is a SSSI. Only the lower meadow is, and only as part of Iffley Meadows, not the upper part.
- I personally associate the place-name Longbridges only to the area around the footpath bridges, not near Donnington Bridge.
- The southern-most tip of the Kidneys, next to Freshman's river, is also part of Iffley Meadows SSSI. The council map forgets about it. De facto, it is part of the Kidneys.

I have mapped others SSSIs in the city as boundaries, but only where nature reserves were not tagged.

One solution would be to map the SSSI, named 'Iffley Meadows' including the units north of the road and across the river (I could do that, I'm used to the tags). The more precise option regarding conservation status.
The other solution is to keep Longbridges north of Donnington bridge, and extend the Kidneys to the tip. The more common-sense solution for local use.
The choice is not hugely consequential, as long as they are covered as nature reserves; I'd be happy with either.

I believe Iffley Meadows, as a SSSI, extends further up. I would keep the previous boundary, since it seems more legally defined.
Longbridges Nature Park would then be only the northern end of the island (where currently there is a duplicate park/reserve).
Let me know if you agree.

In fact it is locked, with codes given to members. https://www.ouwg.org.uk/2020/04/06/covid-19-advice-for-members/

I don't know whether they are ever actually locked, possibly relying on trust only.
All the best.

It is technically open to members only, with a £5/y subscription. See: https://www.ouwg.org.uk/visiting-boundary-brook-nature-park/

Sure. I ended up with the Broad-Magdalen corner which seemed more central from a geographic point of view, but Carfax makes perfect sense. Go ahead!

Thanks, you're probably right. OS OpenData has it as "Lords's" however. I can also find a couple of uses in published work both for "Lord's" and for "Lords". I will double-check the local sign next time I'm there.