Heya, there’s no need to add the house number using the name= tag (or the addr:housename= tag). addr:housenumber= is sufficient to ensure that routing and search software can find the houses. :)

That looks like a conservatory, not solar panels. It’s in shadow in some aerial imagery (nobody installs solar panels in shadow) and looks to be on the first floor, not the second floor.

Hiya, thanks for your edits around Silverdale recently! Note that you can press ‘Q’ while a building is selected to automatically square its corners, which makes it a bit easier to keep the map neat. Happy mapping :)

Thanks

(See discussion on changeset/146136017)

Hi, did you survey this in person? When I was there a couple of months ago, this path was definitely one-way, and definitely for customers only (you have to buy a ticket).

(Apologies for the aggressive tone of my first message, I should have been more polite. It is frustrating to see my work deleted for seemingly no good reason, though.)

Right, that makes sense, thanks.

As well as deleting the trees, though, you also deleted the piece of grass around them which was already mapped, and then replaced it with something much more coarsely detailed.

Firstly, this loses history of others’ contributions to the map (osm.wiki/Keep_the_history), and secondly it’s losing geometric detail.

If the deletion was accidental, note that the map editor has an undo button to allow you to undo mistakes while editing.

Done in changeset/146000715

I trust your on-the-ground survey, and value that you’ve taken the time to explain fully why you’re deleting the track, I think that makes sense. My point is that it because it’s still shown in the imagery (regardless of how old that imagery is), an armchair mapper may re-add the track, and all the context of your survey would not be re-added.

I’ll undo your edit and tag the track as abandoned (which is stronger than disused; see osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay). It then won’t show up on the map, but will show up in the editor.

Thanks for your work to improve the map :D

It exists on the aerial imagery, so perhaps it would be better to retag the track rather than deleting it. Otherwise a well-meaning mapper (who has not surveyed on the ground) may re-add it from aerial imagery in future.

I suggest tagging as access=private or disused:highway=track depending on whether the track completely doesn’t exist on the ground (even if you had a key for the gates, say).

How on earth is this piece of grass (way/1237546078) more ‘detailed’ than what was already mapped there, which you deleted? What are you trying to achieve?

OK, I’ve changed it back to fee=yes in changeset/145873725. Thanks for your fast response :)

Hiya, is the National Trust car park at Blea Tarn definitely free to everyone? That seems unlikely to me (it’s a popular area and National Trust car parks are rarely free to the public). Thanks.

Hi, thanks for your attention to detail on the Dales Way. I see you’ve added name=Dales Way to all the path segments on the route. This is not correct: the name is already tagged on them via a route relation, and that’s the correct way to tag these things.

Otherwise, what happens if one of the footpaths is part of the Dales Way and the Dales High Way, or some other long-distance path? What should it be called? :)

I’ve removed the name in changeset/145723348

Did you align the aerial imagery with the Cadastral Parcels before realigning all these buildings? The Bing aerial imagery is not guaranteed to be aligned to ground truth, and its alignment varies across the country, so it needs to be aligned to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer (which is a source of ground truth) before drawing anything. Especially before realigning lots of buildings.

Why put the housenumbers in brackets?

OK, I’ve tweaked it in changeset/145416379 — let me know if that’s not correct! Ta :)

Heya, just checking: are the stile and gate at node/11435335973 one after another on the track, or next to each other? One after another seems a bit unlikely, and I’m wondering if it’s Every Door being unhelpful again. :)

Why are you turning areas into multipolygons? It loses history and makes it quite a bit harder to edit them in future. I don’t see any benefits.