Hi,

I just wanted to let you know the forest area Way: 76448980 seems to have been inadvertently squared off. If you need help reverting it please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi George,

Thanks for responding. Surely you can see the results of a test on StreetComplete without uploading it. You certainly can with other editors. You might want to try JOSM, with which you can open a layer/area of OSM data, make your additions and see the outcome. You can save you test to your PC for later viewing or further testing all without uploading.

You've not caused any issues so far but it's only serious issues that are flagged as warnings. OSM has in the past had major problems with school and even university online projects where fiction has been inadvertently uploaded. So I would ask if your edits/project can be conducted offline.

If I can help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

It looks like the data you added you then deleted or removed in some way. Do you need any help, please just ask?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, subjective, maybe yes, but only to the extent that you as an individual want to map. Features should be added to reflect ground truth, there is a difference between footpaths and sidewalks.

Paths that run along the side of a road separated by a kerb can be tagged with road tagging but only as sidewalks, (because that is what they are walkways to the immediate side of a road = sidewalks). Those footpaths that I mentioned are as I said separated from the roadway by a grassed area, they are not sidewalks.

Anyway it's not really a good thing to delete genuine properly mapped features merely because you think they ought not be in the database. Please be aware also that OSM is not a map, it is a database from which maps are compiled. OSM therefore can never be seen as "overly cluttered", that is your perception when everything is rendered. If you wish your map not to show/render particular features you are free to compile it omitting those features. The OSM frontpage map, depending on zoom level, shows all features that are renderable from via its stylesheet. Click on the layers to the right of OSM frontpage to see just a few different styles of rendering.

Anyway what can we do to reinstate these footpaths? I'm willing to revert the changes for you.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I just wondered about the two sections of Iron Way. Do they really exist as mapped and tagged? If so then they should be joined not left unjoined isolated sections of highway. Also does the cycleway extend to Mayfield Road? If you need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I just wondered about this bollard, seems strange to have a bollard in the middle os a residential road.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, Could you please say why you have deleted all these footpaths? They clearly exist on viewing imagery as paths separate to roadways, (Portland Drive area).

Regards Bernard.

Hi, looks like there's something wrong here.

You have the name and number as 23, surly 23 is not a name. Also, you put the singular address on the whole building, the building consists of several shops and many apartments. Then there an address interpolation across this building with completely different details, (number and street).

Could look at and correct these anomalies.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've amended quite a few tags to align with OSM practice and better reflect features mapped. Please take a little time to select logical ground truth tags which are not necessarily those offered by the iD editor. The iD editor you're using also has a facility to square up buildings, (highlight/select a building, right-click it, click the square icon from the drop down menu).

Regards Bernard.

Hi, yes I reckoned the road name to be correct, it was the gate tagged name=Gates that I reckoned wrong. I removed the tag name=Gates from the gate barrier and added access=private
barrier=gate to it. I reckoned the gate inferred that access was private. If I'm wrong please remove or amend the access=private tag, (or let me know the allowed access and I'll change it).

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You duplicated the east-west section of Western Ave by placing two highways atop of each other. Western Ave is not a PRoW so it ought not be tagged as such. (Please map the correct PRoW.) I've removed the duplication and incorrect tags.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I tagged the gate as a barrier to the road and removed the name.

Regards Bernard.

Removed fiction name.

Hi,
I've removed one box from the highway centre line onto the grass verge. I remove fiction names and tagged the boxes correctly as amenity=post_box.

I returned a solar panel you dragged out of position as well as a highway node.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've tweaked some of the path lines. Joined others to road lines rather than residential area outlines.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I joined your gate to the highway otherwise it would be a barrier to nothing.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The path you deleted was never said to be a public path, it was a short section of track (used by agricultural vehicles) outside of the residential property that was used by many folk with no let or hindrance as a path. It was at one time a permissive path under a countryside stewardship scheme. Due to the fact of it being used with no let or hindrance for an extended period, it is in my opinion a public highway. The piece of land in question comprises the track only, separate from residential land at west and the small parcel of land directly east. As for your statement "this is a private path", yes of course it is, all land and paths in England are private, some have public rights bestowed by statute or public use.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Features added to OSM must be verifiable, please see :-osm.wiki/Verifiability
I am wondering how this POI can be verified by a passerby? Can the address/position be ascertained on the ground by folk? The website doesn't give an address. Is the tag addr:housename=c/o Curtis Brown, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket actually the address? If so it should be tagged correctly as an address. Is this a house, flat, shop, office or is the business online only?

Surely it can't all be magic!
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I think you've got the wrong impression of what OSM is. OSM is a live worldwide database of on the ground factual and verifiable features. Your dog walk, unfortunately, doesn't meet the OSM criteria for adding to the database. In that, it's not a factual on the ground feature, nor a feature that others can verify. Your mapping also impinged on lots of other mapped features. Thus I've reverted this changeset, all is back as it was.

You actually did quite well at adding the Dog Walk so I hope you'll consider contributing geniuine features to OSM.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
If Bulrush Terrace is open for use to access the properties then the tag construction=residential should be removed. similarly, if the house is now occupied please remove the tag construction=residential.

I've squared uo the building outline to make it neater. I see you reduced the building block outline down to a singles house. Could you please map the other houses in the block you reduced? Need any help please just ask. How many houses are in the block?

Good first mapping, Regards Bernard.