Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You asked for a review of this changeset, which looks fine to me. Thanks for helping to update the map!

Thanks for spotting and correcting that.

Is this more of a private residential garden or grassed area than a park?

If so, you could tag it either as:

leisure=garden + garden:type=residential + access=private

or

landuse=grass

Please don't add fictitious features to the map.

Reverted in changeset/138502628

Thanks. Next time I'm down there with a phone I'll take a couple of pics and try to find a closer value before changing anything.

Thanks!

There's a guide to OSM's access tagging on the wiki here:
access=*

I think with this path access=private might be more appropriate (with the same tag on the gate nodes), assuming that you have to be a member/allotment holder to gain access.

The access=customers tag tends to be used more where a customer can just turn up, e.g. retail parks and their car parks.

There's no need to change it if you're happy with the current value. That should still stop routing software from trying to use it as a through route, although it may be a couple of weeks before it takes effect.

This might be better tagged as building=apartments and splitting the surrounding landuse polygon(s). Removing the building=* tag erases the building from the map.

I'd keep the amenity=shelter, possibly changing it to a polygon. There are a places where the shelter and the bus stop are sufficiently distant from each other to justify it, particularly with the high resolution imagery we have in London.

If the path is within the school grounds, it should probably be bicycle=private rather than permissive, in line with foot=private.

Using separate there really ought to be in the wiki and StreetComplete. I'd start an RFC, but I'm insufficiently masochistic.

With buildings tagged with building:colour=light_brown, would you have any objection to me replacing that with #b5651d, or another hex value? I don't think light_brown is in the current CSS spec.

https://www.colorhexa.com/b5651d

No problem.

Taken in isolation, they used a reasonably plausible story. It was probably shared on a PG cheat channel, e.g. "how to stop mappers immediately reverting the fake park you've added in your mum's back garden." Friends who play inform me that this method of cheating no longer works.

I wonder if it's possible to search changeset comments for the text in their reply. Assuming it's been copied and pasted verbatim, that could yield a few more "parks" to review with extreme prejudice.

I'm not sure I understand the reason for this edit. Continuity with what?

The Bing Streetside imagery is probably a few years old, but it appears to be a bungalow (building:levels=1) in that.

Was the house number incorrect?

Repaired by another user in changeset/121300594

The accuracy of fiction tends to zero. Removed by another mapper in changeset/120668085/
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/54968592

No evidence from aerial imagery. Tag removed.

No, it doesn't exit. Never did, since it clearly doesn't exist in Bing's aerial imagery even 6 years later.

It's just a rather sad attempt to cheat at Pokémon Go.

Reverted in changeset/138174457

Adding micro parks to OSM doesn't work for cheating at Pokémon Go any more, so this bit of vandalism was rather pointless. It's also been reverted.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138167855

Grow up.

Vandalism reverted in changeset/138173730
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138168006