I've been tracing a couple of hedges. Stop; stop. I know I'm out of control.

bicycle_parking=* might be better, actually: like highway=crossing, then crossing=* and there must be others. That probably would work better.

fixme=Survey required; just check if this is a castle

The JOSM way works really well; not sure how to extract the co-ordinates without having to write them down from the Selection panel. The XML way (I guess I would use the Export menu on the site) seems a bit tedious; I'm not a wizard with AppleScript or elsewhat, so I wouldn't know how to script the co-ords out of that file either.

So for the stations (what the council-erected fingerposts call them), would ..let's say railway=station (as is used with railway=light_rail etc.) or railway=tram_stop (as is used with tram lines) be wholly inappropriate?

It's probably only a few, but how do you know that some of these 'almost-junctions' are not actually two separate nodes and which don't form a junction? It's not really worth mentioning, but if someone used routing software, it's better to not route them somewhere where a mapping error has been made -- albeit a slight one and probably accidental.

How about my village? I can surely get someone to take me over my village to get shots; we've even got a nice aerodrome to take off and land. They might even have one in the hangar. This all sounds very expensive; I think I'll just get a higher-res GPS. Getting a bit sick of 19 m accuracy, to be honest.

Guess we'll have to wait for another company to be nice and licence their photos appropriately.

I don't think we should name/number them, David; I think they should just appear as a blue line as on the Cambridge cycle map (of which I have a copy Blu-tack to my hallway). I think a few people should go out and cycle between two of the destinations (I know the Kings Hedges mark is at a Tesco Express; perfect for a cheap sandwich) and follow the signs from one end of the city to another. The lcn will undoubtedly double over some stretches of road/cycleway (Gresham Road, Hobson Street, etc.). Just set a device to record, and cycle around: but remember to *only follow the signs*; in Cambridge, it's so easy to make slight deviations.

OpenCycleMap? Of course I have. I'll mark the route out from the multitude of 'primary' route signs dotted about Cambridge. I'm absolutely certain of the routes of some of the network, so I'll leave the rest until I've gone and surveyed.

Cambridge's route and signage are more or less flawless. I'll mark in the local routes that I 100% know the route of, and I'll have to set a GPX off and follow the signs for each of the others. Cambridge's map is available from most bike shops in the city, the Council and also http://www.camcycle.org.uk/resources/map/

@davespod The trouble with elevation and height and that lot of data is that it's terribly inaccurate from most devices.

Don't get me started on JOSM. No plugin works, whatsoever; my Mac refuses to let it use plugins. I wouldn't mind having the wmsplugin (correct; yeah?) but I can't. As for inconsistency, I thought we had a tag proposal scheme in place for new tags; I wonder why we don't have a problem with things like plurals, as is a problem in other folksonomy projects.

@davespod: indeed so.

To be honest, I got rid of that tag because I didn't know what to do with 'indoor hall'. Yeah; I'm a bit weird like that. I know it's the wrong attitude, but if something can't be corrected it shouldn't be there. (general rule across life)

Minh Nguyen: I'm against redundant or otherwise trivial information, that does nothing but waste resources, time and efficiency.

chillly: absolutely, and that's why it's a great project. I just don't believe that one should put information in there only to be used at a later date. It's not a repository; it's advanced cartography.

Richard: I'm referring to the kinds of information that no map using the data currently parses.

@SK53 and @RichardB: the only people of which the tracks=* information is useful to is people like Network Rail or the TOCs; personally, I don't think they'll be using OSM any time soon.

@davespod: not meaning to be a pessimist about the whole map, but do you really think someone's going to want to find not only a sports centre that they've never been to (e.g. searching for it directly, which will never be implemented) but a specific sport taking place at that amenity. Hey; I'm in the mood for some tennis in this alien city. Let's search the map to find something near me. I'm just in a real mood to play tennis.

And what I mean by searching directly is that I can go, for instance, to the search box and find something scarily specific. I always wanted to have something like coffee=*, where * is replaced by the cost of a standard takeaway mug of filter coffee or something. One could then write an iPhone app that finds your location, queries the database and finds you the cheapest coffee nearabouts. Obviously, this would be unfeasible to implement: the fluctuating price of coffee is but one factor.

Alright; put your Shift key away. As a perfectionist, faults like the ones you've all described are something I have a severe problem with and I will try and control my eradication habits. As for references, all my edits can and have been proved from reliable sources: whether
that be from some vent of open data or local knowledge that is rather large to fit in that
little box. If you all want to continue to row over who's done what and this and that, that's fine but I'm just here to deploy my knowledge and help out with creating an open map that'll still be relevant in decades to come--and I do hope it is still there. Rights of way don't just disappear, unless the County close them that is

Bene re: @SK53: I wasn't describing it as abandoned; osm.wiki/Proposed_features/tracks was.

To be honest, should have checked Tagwatch beforehand. Someone rewrite the code for the lint engine, please. (I've had enough lint for today)