Hi Mike, thanks for continuing to help OpenStreetMap.

Don't forget to provide a comment when you save to explain what you're doing and what your source was (e.g. edits while out with GPS recording, using local knowledge or Bing imagery).
More info is at osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Please do not create massive changesets. Please read through the guidelines. osm.wiki/Automated_edits

Please can you be more specific in declaring your imagery_used rather than using the same value for every change.
I cannot see how you know that Fore Bondgate is one way. It would also be helpful to add access tags to this road.

is_in tags can help describe/address a place when code might make geospatial mistakes. However that should be less likely to happen with me checking and fixing the relations.

It's essentially an old habit that I keep slipping into, especially when there are some is_in tags on the object already. It doesn't do any harm, other than wasting my time.

If Devon boundaries are changed so much that towns fall in a different county, then I would become quite surprised.

I'd like to make sure this is tagged right, but I don't want to rush into changing them again.

Nottinghamshire seems to be more unique in the largeness of it's unparished areas. I'll see if I come across anything similar in the UK. boundary=place still allows for all the tags such as names and ids used for statistics. As it needs to be done consistently and maintained, I'll discuss with you and the community but will also see where the wiki could be updated.

I did some research to find appropriate tagging, and look at the OSM data of a few unparished areas.

The boundary tag had no more appropriate value documented, and I'm not sure what it would be. I've known boundary=administrative to be used widely, including where it is not such a formal/legal definition. The unparished boundaries do have a precise definition, and in places like County Durham I've known them to be used for purposes such as directed funding and statistics.

I did not come across the mailing list thread that you've linked to. It seems the solution there was that these could remain if boundary=place is done (all other tags could exist). The wiki documentation should be updated to suggest that.

Thanks for adding this, however on the map note you said "Added house numbers from Cornwall Council planning map"

Depending on the type and detail of the planning map, it may or may not be legal to copy that information into OpenStreetMap.
Ordnance Survey maps can only be copied if they are released under the "Open Government License" (OGL) as per osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata

When using such data sources rather than visiting the location yourself, please make this clear in your changeset comment.

They were the names used to refer to the buildings on the Emek Beraka site, verbally and in written documents. The "Big Tent" is more an open-sided barn, so this might be a miss-translation from it's Bosnian name.

Thank you for helping improve OpenStreetMap. Perhaps you could help by improving other parts of the map for Watlington.
I notice the church around the corner is missing it's name, but I don't live near by enough to check what it is.

In future, please be careful not to remove building=yes if it is still a visible structure (even if it's a ruin). See discussion at https://twitter.com/3albers/status/925318722411212800

Hmm, I thought access=* (any value) was generally accepted and used, although you seem to be right that it isn't.

There was a sign declaring staff only, so access=private losses some information. Looking at the wiki documentation, I'm stuck for a better option so I'll go with that.

I think these were wooden post markers with the numbers on. It suggested the woodland area was divided into plots of land. However, I may be wrong and they may relate to the footpaths (or foot routes).

Hopefully someone local will see the posts, or similar ones, and make more sense of it.

You were right that they've started construction of Phase 2 (Phase 1 almost complete opposite the girls' High School).
I've changed the main area back to a meadow, but using JOSM I made it a multipolygon relation with a hole in the middle. The hole contains a construction area and a residential area. I walked round the fencing for the construction site, even though about 1/3 is still like a meadow inside.

In short: we can now shift the nodes around, to adjust the size of the meadow/construction/residential areas and they will stay relative to each other.

Mike, you should avoid adding roads (such as in the York Gate Plantation) that don't connect to anywhere else. Either don't add them, or estimate how/where they connect under the trees, and tag with a note/source to say it's estimated.

Great start. Thanks for continuing the work I did North of here.

I didn't think there was any building work on the Mount Oswald site yet (besides the oddly empty roads).
If there is, we should map the specific area it covers as landuse=construction, until it is open when it should be landuse=residential. You can see how I have done that to the South section of the site. For now, there is nothing here but some overgrown grass, hence landuse=meadow.

It would be helpful to record a GPS track and add footpaths in this area. Also would be great to add the name and extent of the nature reserve it's in (if it is) leisure=nature_reserve

Hi Aceman. I know I did a lot of cutting up roads so that the route relation members covered only the right parts. Sorry if I somehow created duplicate objects in the process, thank you for fixing it.

If you spot a similar duplicate object by me in the future, please let me know so I can look at it closely before deletion. This will help me think how it might happen. I will also fix it up.

From Durham,
Gregory/LivingWithDragons

tourism=hostel and building=yes are not appropriate for a number of reasons.
I've updated it to landuse=construction which represents it's current state, which would be best changed to landuse=residential when complete. I don't think this site is for a hostel but privately rented houses marketed at students. The building(s) could be mapped as separate objects within the "Chapel Heights" area, but that will be difficult to do well without updated aerial imagery.

"Drat, I've just deleted Bishop Langley." was thankfully just a reference to my local copy of the data which was open in QGIS.