I just added a few more building traces in this area, and moved the nodes you'd added to the building outlines. You might want to check my work, as I am armchair mapping the area, and your edit says you did a gps survey.

That's very flattering, I'm just a amateur though. Are you speaking at it?

This edit has added two streets to the SE of Durbar Square, one of which overlaps completely with the other. It is clearly an error, but I do not know which name is correct: Nisthananda marg or Jochhne. ( way/577458434 or way/577458435 ). I have deleted the shorter of the two ( changeset/59933484 ), as I know the area well enough to know that the short one was too short, but do not know if the remaining road is named correctly.

Also I'm interested in what the building named "Resting place" is. Is it some place anyone can shelter from the rain or sun?

What was this mapping based on? Is there really a church in Dhulikhel?

I've realized that without the forest tag the parks stopped rendering at all. While I don't want to tag for the renderer, I do want these parks to render.

I checked how national parks are tagged in Canada, and found that the `leisure=nature_reserve` tag was on all of them, in addition to the `national_park` tag. It seems an appropriate tag for these parks too, so I've added. Please let me know if you feel it's not good tagging.

Thanks bhai. :-)

I've deleted the forest tags off these parks, as none of these parks were entirely forested, many already had the forested areas mapped more accurately, and adding the forest tag to the park hid the more accurate forest boundary. I know you are a very experienced mapper, but I think it is better not to add forest tags to park boundaries.

Awesome, thanks!

As this edit changes both the coastline, and other objects, and the coastline rendering updates with a different frequency than other objects it may look a bit weird until the coastline rendering is updated too.

This edit adds `ref` and `old_ref`tags to what is now mapped as highway G317, for example: way/81967418 and others. What are the sources of these `ref` values?

I've checked the addresses on the East side of Lanark St, and found most of them accurate, just one building had 3 separate addresses in reality, and only one added by this changeset. Even though the addresses added are mostly accurate, I would like to know what the source this editor is getting this address data from. Please let us know mapgdd1.

This changeset contains at least 1 error in the addresses added. I was out noting some addresses today, to add them to OSM, and found that 3333 Commercial had both been added to the wrong building. It should be on the neighbouring building.

I think I've asked before, but what source are you using for these addresses? It would be very useful to provide this information, and many sources *require* users credit them, for example the addresses provided by the City of Vancouver, under the "Open Government Licence – Vancouver", requires crediting them.

Wherever you are getting these addresses it'd be worth letting other OSM editors know.

This edit adds a small park, named "Beach Access". I'd like to know if this is actually a separate park from Tapovan Sri Chinmoy, and if it is, what the official name is. I've made a note about this, could you please answer it here: note/874456

Thank you!

Thanks for the input Viajero. I am annoyed by Josm warnings too, and it feels better to only upload changes that Josm does not provide warnings for, but I think that warnings should not be viewed as definitive. I think in some cases it's better to upload despite the warnings.

What's the reason for adding the name of the road to a bridge?

I always felt that if a bridge had a name tag, then it should be specific to the bridge. This bridge probably has a name, but it'd be something generic like "bridge 18".

Am I missing something?

This edit deletes a 2.6km section of road and a bridge, causing routing engines to provide a 451km detour. It seems that the deletion of this section of road was done in error. The road was certainly open to the public and in good shape 9 months ago, when I was there.

I do feel it necessary to point out that, this is not the first time I've come across an edit by a telnav mapper, that has messed up the map, through what seems like carelessness.

I've reverted the edit, to fix the issue.

I can't say from first hand knowledge that this is actually a weir, but that is how I understood the tagging, and how it looks in the imagery. The way was actually tagged as a hospital, which is clearly wrong. One of the nodes was tagged as a weir, and seems the original editor intended that for the entire way.

Hi Warin, thanks for your quick reply. I hope my initial message didn't come across as rude. After sending it I was thinking I could have been more polite. Sorry about that.

You make some good points. And I agree, that the way I've done it is not ideal, but I do think it is an improvement.

To start out I'll point out that the renderer is not seeing it as a pedestrian area *only*. It is presently being rendered as a pedestrian area, with a market icon, and the name on it. It "sees" both.

When the way at the periphery of the chowk did not have the area= yes tag on it, the name did not render, and the fact that it's a market was only clear if you know mandi is the Hindi word for market.

I'd also point out that while the area is *packed* with the stalls of vegetable hawkers, it is not just the periphery that is accessible by pedestrians, there are plenty of paths through it. I'd compare the chowk with a city square (which is one translation): imagine a city square somewhere in Europe that had sections used for café tables. We could map the entire square as a pedestrian area, and not worry about the fact that some areas are not publicly accessible w/o buying a coffee. The difference here is that more of the area is not accessible due to it being taken up by the hawkers tables, but it's a reasonable comparison.

I'd also say that we are not breaking the one feature one OSM eminent rule. The Chowk is a paved area *and* a market. This is not uncommon, and can be clearly seen in the pre-existing name tag, which contains both the word chowk (for crossroads, or square) and mandi (for market).

You're right, this is not perfect, but I think it's as good as we can get, I'm convinced it's an improvement.

I hope that makes sense, and is helpful.

Hi Warin61, are you familiar with the area that had been tagged area=yes? Because it seems to me that it is more accurate to tag it as an area.

While the entire area isn't accessible due to the vegetable hawkers' stalls, it's not just the periphery that is publicly accessible.

As such I'm adding on the area=yes tag, but wanted to let you know so I'm posting this comment.