ok yeah "description:de" (changed it)

That's what I thought at first, but apparently it is the "title" of the work: http://www.artnews.com/2017/06/12/it-tolls-for-thee-cerith-wyn-evanss-skulptur-projekte-munster-piece-is-nearly-imperceptible/ Unfortunately the art world has no rules about choosing sensible length of title. Certainly we don't want to make it worse with a german translation in the same tag, but beyond that i'm not sure what we should do about it in our map data really.

Hi JenLynn07. Thanks for you help with the Hurricane Irma mapping response.

Some important feedback on your contributions though. I noticed you're adding some points of interest with source=Google Maps . We're not actually allowed to create data in OpenStreetMap by copying from google maps. We're creating a free open licensed map of the world. It must not be a copy from a copyrighted map.

Review requested? I live near here and I happen to know there are some trees here yes. So that is a good first edit.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap Eloise!

Yeah I think all of those footpaths should capture that pretty well. Here we're just talking about this section: osm.org/directions?engine=mapzen_foot&route=53.40921%2C-2.16324%3B53.40958%2C-2.16199#map=19/53.40940/-2.16257 Now foot routable. But somebody might improve it by surveying and adding in whether or not there's pavement under the bridge alongside the big flight of steps mapped there.... except personally I would question the wisdom of starting to add in hyperdetailed pavements-as-footways data, so not sure if anything else is needed really.

Thanks for adding this little playground to the map way/89407044 (6 years ago!)

I was just chatting with some locals about it. Apparently it's called Dalmeny Park and is "under threat" from a planning application: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-dalmeny-park-n7-it-s-under-threat

Good point. Well spotted. So I've added foot=yes to those road sections to fix this. The other way to fix would be to weave the relation along the footways which are there in places... but only in places. As usual, representing pedestrian rout-ability is bit tricky. But yes, certainly this relation should be foot-routable.

I see you added a bunch of jokey things here. "geeky" farmland area. "Some guys gaff" building. Your experiment with editing OpenStreetMap has worked! It made it onto the map. I will tidy up some of this now. Feel free to contribute map information for *real* things in the area :-) You added some footpath details which look good. You're encouraged to add more of this! I'm just connecting those to the nearby road properly.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. You did three edits around London, all of which were successful experiments. It works! You edited the map!

....but yes to complete the set of three I will now revert this one too. There's no supermarket in the middle of Camden Town station. next step: Have a go at adding something *real* which is missing!

I see this edit was undone. Unsurprisingly there was no need to re-map Buckingham Palace. Already in as a relation with tourism=attraction tag relation/5208404

Certainly it's very bad data which should never have been added, and it would've been a good idea to delete the *whole lot* after it was added, (across the whole massive strip of the himalayas)

It can be corrected mind you. And the thing is it *has* been corrected in some areas: osm.org/#map=10/27.4321/85.1358 Lot of effort. Ideally we would treat the whole thing equally somehow to avoid creating massive inconsistencies in the zoomed out view of the map. I guess we could try to get people to put in woodland in this area in an additive approach instead.

We discussed a funny straight edge of the woodland in Uttarakhand on a note here: note/724221#map=9/30.2745/79.2856&layers=N ...but I see you deleted the whole thing.

I'm removing this building you added in Hyde Park, since it doesn't exist. Thanks for experimenting with editing OpenStreetMap. The experiment worked! Remember your edits *do* change the map, so please only add things which are real :-)

Searching the web for zoos in Saint Marcellin turns up nothing. It seems like you were experimenting Sébastien. Shall we delete this?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for adding your cafe in Belsize Park. I live over in Archway myself so I don't know the area so well. But I see you added the cafe twice, so I will remove one of them (the one with less details). Looking at the cafe location, I see the address is 2A, so I guess it replaces an older shop called "Criterion Tiles" we had mapped there previously. Does that sound right? And is there still a 'Violette Café' at 2B?

cool. thanks! Seems like there's quite a few of these names beginning with 'Parcella:' . I'm seeing them on my "long names" list here: http://harrywood.co.uk/maps/longnames/

I saw you created this building: way/379366527 The 'name' there is very long. That is not the name of the building. Maybe it's the 'description' or something else. I'm not sure.

Not sure if it's a problem really. From a practical point of view, nothing seems to render the name from these relations, so unlike some of the other long names, there's no rendering chaos created by it. From a more philosophical data point of view, I suppose I would question whether this is the "name" of the route. Maybe it's the 'description'

These bus route relations have very long names. They're showing up on my list here: http://harrywood.co.uk/maps/longnames/

In this changeset (4 years ago now!) it looks like you made a typo "network=Nation Rail" should be "network=National Rail". Gregory was just spotting this. I think we should probably go ahead and fix that