Thanks for your edit. I've removed node [13196614634](node/13196614634) (Stena Line ferry terminal) because this is double mapping: the terminal building already had these tags.

My pleasure!

Quite! Yes I've made tweaks here and there too after they mapped the bus stops, although mostly on the geometry side, consistency and so on. I might pop you a separate message.

Ah, well spotted ramthelinefeed – thanks for pointing out. I'll fix it for now, although I suspect the routes around here will need a fairly full overhaul anyway (will pass on to the Translink user who may already be on it).

Hi JohnBradshaw, I recognise this is an old edit now, but just wondering what the rationale is behind changing mini-roundabouts to full roundabouts due to numbers of incoming/outgoing lanes? I see no mention of this practice on [highway=mini_roundabout](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ahighway%3Dmini_roundabout).

Hi kevinmcg, nice work with mapping of buildings here. A tip for better results is to use the "Q" key with a building selected, to square off the hand-drawn corners.

It also helps other editors if you include a more accurate description when submitting your edits, for example "buildings in the Antrim Road area". If you have any queries, do feel free to respond on this changeset, or reach out to me by private message.

Hi kevinmcg, I've corrected one of your edits on Dargan Road, the Dale Farm building. You labelled this as shop=dairy, but while that's the activity of this company, the building is not a dairy. For clarity, the description of your tag is "A shop selling dairy products."

I've changed this to office=company, the description of which is "An office of a private company."

Please do reach out to me, I'd be happy to chat via the messaging system in the openstreetmaps editor – I'm an experienced mapper and can offer tips and advice to avoid adding incorrect information to the map. I have tried getting in touch previously, so you may already have messages waiting in your inbox.

Hi Kevin, this isn't a building taking up the whole space. I'll remove the building=yes tag for you and make it clear it is an area under construction instead. Additionally, if you have a source for this being a telecom exchange, could you please reference it in your "Changeset comments" when you save an edit? Otherwise, your edits may be minsconstrued as vandalism.

Just a note to say great work pablobm, thanks! 👏😊

No prob, thanks for pointing it out :)

Ah, thanks for that ramthelinefeed - looks like I forgot to remove the route relations from the (formerly road ways) admin boundary lines, so there was a duplication of the route along a short stretch. Have fixed now; OSM inspector isn't currently behavong for me so I can't check whether it's resolved now, but it should be.

Apols, incorrect reference link - the correct one is bridge=*#Bridge_lifecycle

Thanks for the edit ChezFrogLegs. Could I suggest though, rather than deletion, to mark the bridge as collapsed via its tags, as per bridge=*#Bridge%20lifecycle ?

Just swapping the highway tag for abandoned:highway would do this and mean that the way is still mapped and can be reinstated at a later date if/when rebuilt (or altered to ruins:highway or removed:highway etc as appropriate). This also has the added benefit that any unwitting mapper who comes along and sees the old aerial imagery doesn't inadvertently reinstate the footway.

Thanks for the message. To address each point:
1. I've found a few that didn't quite match on the north face of the building - fixed now. All nodes link to the outer edge of the building where they should; nodes that are away from the edge of the building are deliberately so for the facades (see below) and for the angled roof sections which meet in the middle.
2. Thanks for that, I've removed the construction tags on the building - the surrounding area is still under construction, so is correct.
3. Yes, this is representative of what is on the ground (while using the newest imagery as a reference).
4. Roof sections are tagged with building:material, not roof:material, because their outer walls are concrete. However it's probably more elegant to place the building:material in the main building, so I've done so and removed from each of the building:parts.
5. This facade could potentially be a barrier=wall with material=glass instead of a polygon I suppose - not sure it would render well in 3D though, and the East wall would still need to have the current setup anyway (as the angled roof shape is also part of the polygon). There are pros and cons to either approach, not least that technically it should be a "part" of the building construction, rather than a separately mapped line. But I'm open to suggestions.

Ah, fair enough :-)

This does highlight a wider difficulty around effectively mapping floor numbers, heights and separate parts of buildings that are on uneven/sloping ground though. Technically the way you mention, relative to ground level on the north side (entrance side), would have height=0, or perhaps height=-3 or something as it is a basement level. Meanwhile, where it sits on the south side, the ground level is much lower, so in reality it's more than a metre proud of the surrounding ground. I think my height=1 was a compromise to demonstrate the distinctive shape to the building (part). It's a difficult thing to standardise really.

Another nearby example is way/148653738 which has an underground level which becomes ground level at one end of the building.

I should add, it'll take around 24 hours for f4map to update, it's a bit annoying like that.

Thanks, I had some time on my hands :-D

On that photo, the way you're talking about is just out of sight around the building, to the left. So you may be confusing it with the shelter over the main entrance on the north side (which admittedly I didn't map). I've made another edit which adds the entrance structure, in case that clarifies. The bit on the other side (from my own knowledge of it) has a basement space, while the ground floor is just a flat terrace.

My apologies, and thanks for the correction. Some parking ways etc had this inconsistently applied, so I had thought it was a mistake. NB this is likely to result in GPS routers stating "turn left onto A4" on any of these service roads, causing confusion, so it may be that a different or subset tag would be appropriate like loc_ref - but as a visitor I don't want to intrude on local standards 😊

Ooh, sorry about that! I thought I had picked up on any relations at the time.

Ah yes - there are no signs because it is still national speed limit in all directions - no signage is required, as there is no change. Rumble strips may cause a driver to reduce speed, but "maxspeed" is for the legal limit of the road, not the driveable limit. So on the A4 dual carriageway (and on A5 DC link to the old Ballygawley roudabout) I have marked as
maxspeed=70 mph
maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_dual
[NB: This is the established norm for UK national speed limits: the maxspeed:type contains the signed NSL and type of applicable road; maxspeed contains the highest legal speed by any vehicle (in this case, car/motorbike/light van) and is provided for routers which don't yet process the UK NSL tags. Once they do, they should show the lowest of the two tags, dependent on vehicle type.]
Similarly, on the single carriageway A5/A4 I have set as
maxspeed=60 mph
maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single.

The nearest national speed limit signs are on the Grange Road approach from Ballygawley (signed 30 mph) to the old roundabout.