Right, so they're the same thing and would benefit from deduplification?

This looks like a duplicate of way/79713962 - I doubt it makes sense to have the same feature mapped twice.

This looks like a duplicate of way/79713962 - I doubt it makes sense to have the same feature mapped twice.

Thank you for this helpful improvement to the map. You might like to consider using more descriptive tags instead of using a "description" tag in English. The "parking=layby" tag described at parking=layby is commonly used: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/parking#values

Hi, thank you for your helpful work improving the map. I notice you used "closed:shop" to tag the closed shop. However, this tag is rarely used: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/closed:shop - I've amended it to the more common "disused:shop" described at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/disused:shop

Hi, thank you for all your helpful changes near Hopton recently. I notice you have tagged several agricultural fields as "landuse=grass". Although these areas have a grass surface, I wonder whether something like "landuse=meadow" and "meadow=pasture" would be more descriptive given the descriptions on landuse=grass and landuse=meadow - what do you think?

Hi. Thank you for adding these new houses to the map! It's conventional to map addresses using the "addr:" tags not "name" as you have done here. If you're interested in improving this you might find osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom helpful - let me know if you have any questions.

I have fixed this in changeset/117719401 after receiving a private message from Horace Bear.

Thank you for your work on the map. I notice you reverted my changes in changeset/109760998 to the Alport Heights car parks. Can you explain why you consider these changes an improvement? The car parks have been closed since the start of the pandemic, so I believe disused:amenity=parking makes much more sense than amenity=parking. You have also changed the operator to a weird name and removed the area tag. I don't understand how these improve the map.

Thank you for adding the camp site's name. I couldn't see the name signed anywhere when I mapped the site.

Thank you for your comments, Douglal. I assume the OS map you checked was an old, out of copyright map. You're right that the land to the east of the trigpoint is higher, so I've reverted this changeset in changeset/117048107

I've left a follow-up comment on changeset/116631600 which moved this node.

Thanks again for helping to improve the map. I commented on this node a while after it was added: changeset/101416787. We now have two nodes node/448899243 and node/8542013793 in the same place, but both attempt to represent the same thing. The older node is more established and has more detail associated with it, such as the trig point's reference code, so I suggest deleting the newer one that you moved. What do you think?

Cool, I've changed this in changeset/116751052 - I hope that looks correct to you.

Thank you for helping to improve the map. Although there's a trig point here, I wouldn't describe it as a "peak" - it's quite a flat area. I'd suggest tagging it with man_made=survey_point instead of natural=peak - what do you think?

Thanks for that: I've not got round to using Streetcomplete yet, but if I do I'll look out for surprises like this.

Thank you for helping to improve the map. I notice the new car park you added at way/1014066261 overlaps one that already exists at way/235098934 - I've combined them both into one car park and added tags in changeset/115988981

Also I notice the platform you added at way/235098931 overlaps the Pullman Buffet at way/235098927 - you might want to tidy up the boundaries between these.

I'm puzzled by this change: there's a noticeboard here, but nothing that I'd consider an office that you can go inside for tourist information.

Thank you for this helpful improvement to the map. I notice that Bollington FP 41 way/101827164 is marked as both "designation=public_footpath" and "access=private". It doesn't seem right that both these things can be true: if it's a public footpath, at least "foot=yes" should be set and I wonder if other forms of access are also permitted.

Hi, I noticed this is tagged with the name "Woolsone" but I suspect it should be "Woolstone"