Hi
relation/8506033/history

Are you adding historic county boundaries from new or updating existing?

Hi
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/AOP
This OP query highlights 'C' refs on pedestrian, service, residential & track ways (including some polygons). If possible, it would be good if you could check them for potential errors.

I'm still wait to know how you know what you claim...

How do you know that?

i plan to update wiki pages once the tag is agreed upon. I've started a discussion on Talk-GB. There you'll see a list of the various 'C' ref tags. Amalgamating them into one makes the DB more accurate.

Hi
Could you show me where your edits to 'official-ref' were consented?
I informed you of my plans. You raised no objection.
My actions make the OSM database more accurate. I plan to post on Talk-GB when I've compiled all the data once completed.

Doh! Replied to my own changeset.

Hi
I'm cleaning up 'C' class roads refs so they don't render. (discussed on Talk:gb)

A while ago you added ref= C114 which conflicted with the existing admin:ref tag.
way/120451345/history
Are you able to double check to see which is correct?
Ta

Hi
I'm cleaning up 'C' class roads refs so they don't render. (discussed on Talk:gb)

A while ago you added ref= C114 which conflicted with the existing admin:ref tag.
way/120451345/history
Are you able to double check to see which is correct?
Ta

You make a fair point. However, for now, I'd like to continue with highway_authority_ref. Once unified it can be discussed on the forum. If it's decided another option is better, amending just one tag is so much easier. For clarity I'm amending 'tertiary' roads with a C* ref. atm. I'll be checking other road classifications after.

Hi

There was a discussion in 2015: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017414.html about this. Official_ref was felt to be too generic. There could be more than one 'official' ref from more than one authority. Highway_authority_ref was considered a good solution. I've been gradually (very) updating refs & official_refs to this tag. Once that's finished the misspelt, & random tag (designation etc) can be updated. It would b good to get all refs in the same tag.
Do you use the official_ref data for any means? If so would it be much work to change any software to accept the changes?

Hi, More to do with tagging for the consumer. Is it fair they're expected to find & understand the various different NapTAN codes. I note there's a few in London with different names to differentiate between NR, LO & LU. And then, of course, there are the stations prefixed with 'London' in OSM but not on any of the signs.

They are all stations, just varying in size & facilities. Any differences should be noted in sub tags. Such as railway=station, station=halt (although it should be more accurately described: request_stop=yes). Can't speak for everywhere, but there's a couple of 'halts' on my line which have become permanent stops due to increased passenger loads.

My overall objective: To remove duplicated information (railway=station) & to store tags relevant to rail stations in one entity instead of splitting it between two.
Once I'd done that there was an irrelevant 'site' relation, so I deleted it. In fact these 'site' relations are irrelevant anyway. I believe some have got obsessed with creating unnecessary collections of things (see stop_areas). The wiki page is marked as abandoned. I note the platforms weren't included so it wasn't a very complete collection anyway

I'm not keen on railway=station being attached to building=train_station as there are often multiples of such buildings & can be a distance from the actual station, especially in large cities like London.

Tim has performed similar edits. I think all his changesets need a review. I was hoping he'd do it.

And this one Tim
It looks like all your edits may need to be reverted. Please learn how to map responsibly. There are lots of tutorials on the web. Remember, it's not just a map/database for your benefit or hobbies.

Oh Dear Tim
This needs to be removed. The temp circuit is not a separate way.
Could you please review all your edits for similar duplication please.

Tim
Why have you created duplicate ways? There's clearly just one stretch of tarmac

Hi Tim
Viewing current onboard footage I'm unsure what your addition is representing.
The chicane used is already mapped.

Hi
Do you know where NCN4 has been rerouted?
way/191696719#map=18/51.59132/-3.78039&layers=C