The way you do your mapping has to fit in with the capabilities of the available tools. You are knowingly creating tedious work for other people.

You’re saying there’s no consensus to osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets?

Nice work!

Great, thanks

Did you delete the EV charging station deliberately? According to the railway website, it still exists: https://ravenglass-railway.co.uk/plan-your-visit/facilities (see the Parking section).

Other people review edits. Review tools such as osmcha.org only allow edits to be marked as “good” or “bad” once. That means that whoever reviews your edit has to either review all 100+ POIs, spread across the world, with no local knowledge — or to review the ones they know about and then ignore the rest and mark the edit as good/bad appropriately.

Changes need to be local so that they can be reviewed by locals with local knowledge.

Added to that, the larger the bbox of an edit, the longer it takes for most review tools to load it. So you waste even more of people’s time.

Should way/749787582 be a driveway at the north end (down to the gate, or just before), and then a footpath?

If so, the convention for this is to
1. split the way
2. make the north end highway=service service=driveway foot=designated designation=public_footpath prow_ref=(as is)
3. add access=private to the driveway if vehicular access is private
4. make the south end highway=footway foot=designated designation=public_footpath prow_ref=(as is) and remove the service=driveway from it

Then the vehicle and foot access tagging should be correct for both parts of the footpath, and the ‘type’ of highway should also be correct.

Or I could have misinterpreted what you were trying to do here. Let me know! :)

For anyone reading this in future, this changeset is in response to discussion on changeset/149881838

Super, thanks a lot :)

For anyone reading this in future, the renames were done as changeset/149920422

I’ve restored the station node’s history in changeset/149910853, while trying to retain your other changes from this changeset.

Hiya, what were you trying to change here? You’ve deleted and re-created the station node (with a slightly different name), and by doing so have lost all the contribution history, and the wikidata tagging, on that node.

Yeah I think natural=fell would be appropriate for all of them. That’s what they’re named after all! I think this is one of the cases where ID is wrong in its suggestions — the wiki says that natural=fell is OK to use on nodes (natural=fell). Cheers :)

Hiya, why change way/117882830 from waterway=dock? That tagging is documented as valid for areas as well as nodes: waterway=dock

Hiya, why change node/4860056876 from natural=fell to place=locality? natural=fell is a more specific tagging for it.

I should have said: I don’t think it’s worth going back through all the buildings you’ve added recently to square their corners. They’re pretty accurate already. I just noticed one or two which weren’t square which reminded me that you might not know about this tool. :)

Sources (too long to fit in the changeset metadata):
- https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/24110421.kendals-maya-maya-close-19-years-stock-moved-online/
- https://www.facebook.com/mayamayakendal/posts/pfbid0kBR3KDKgwPVfjn8dTidY5EcvcFw93YSRjGx3PGZAjpQsbvQkas9u6jqTLrc5D3rql
- https://www.facebook.com/Slate
- https://www.facebook.com/lamaisonlifestyle/

Nice work! Just a quick note to say that you can use the ‘Q’ key to automatically square the corners of a selected building in ID. It helps when drawing regular buildings. :)

Thanks!

Lovely idea to add these NT walks as route relations in OSM, thanks!

For anyone looking at this in future, the discussion about it is on changeset/148228217 (which also links to the Talk-GB threads).

I object to my changeset (changeset/148762569) being described as “removing valid data”. It changed the tagging from something which was discussed on Talk-GB (which was not mentioned or linked to in your original change) to something which is documented on the wiki. Both of those are valid taggings. The changeset did not _remove_ any data.