That would be great. Thank you both.

Velella - don't worry about it, JOSM makes it too easy to unintentionally make big changes to relations like this. Hope you're enjoying NZ.

Hi - any thoughts on this?

This isn't really a hill whose commonly accepted name is "pokemon holy trinty gym", is it?

Hi - great to see all the work you've been doing on the Wales Coast Path. Unfortunately you appear to have removed massive amounts of the path from the relation in this changeset, I'm afraid, and the result is that large chunks of the path in North Wales are no longer shown. Before this edit the relation had 400 members; afterwards it had 100. Could you investigate and reinstate the missing members, please? Thank you!

Pretty much - NCN 45 was originally 'braided' through Swindon with two possible routes; Sustrans has demoted one of them to a bracketed link route (as it has done in several places).

Any automated edits would have to follow the Automated Edits Code of Conduct (osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct) - they're really not for the faint-hearted because it's very easy to screw things up. I wouldn't recommend it. But your editor may allow you to load shapefiles and to bring the geometries through to the map one-by-one, carefully making sure they're tagged correctly and that they join up with existing features where appropriate.

New Strava heatmap is great!

I've been using http://osm.cycle.travel/unreviewed.html to identify regularly cycled roads and then retagging as appropriate (assuming highway=unclassified is paved unless there's a surface tag present).

Road geometry is amazingly broken in WV though :(

Heh - you beat me to it by one day!

> it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges

That's a genuine issue, but one which would be better fixed by removing the not-actually-a-bridge values than by removing the actually-a-bridge values. ;)

note= tags aren't machine-readable - so in practice, moving things from a machine-readable tag to a note means that they are practically lost to all consumers.

At the very least, this should have been moved to bridge:structure= rather than a note= .

There is no "list of approved values". Those documented on the wiki are simply "informal standards" (as osm.wiki/Map_Features explains) and removing information like this is discouraged, to put it mildly.

historic:highway=* would be much better than highway=historic. Generally the key should reflect what it is, not what it used to be. It is a historic highway but it's not a highway.

taginfo reports 1,200 historic:highway=* vs just 6 highway=historic.

(railway=abandoned/dismantled is kind of grandfathered in but not a good example to follow!)

'St' is standard British orthography to denote a saint, rather than simply an abbreviation. Please see https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/19609/saint-or-st-is-there-an-official-osm-policy

Hi - great to see the work you've been doing. Please don't remove tiger:reviewed from a road unless you've also verified the road surface - a 'reviewed' residential road would usually be assumed paved unless otherwise tagged. Thanks!

Wow, that's wonderful. Love that sort of little detail.

highway=unclassified, surface=unpaved is ok but slightly unidiomatic for UK mapping. There's nothing wrong with it per se - there are lots of dirt roads in the States mapped that way, for example - but it's slightly unexpected in a UK context where highway=unclassified isn't used by custom for such a road. I wouldn't die on a hill for it either way.

trigpoint's right with the ref though - this should go into official_ref or similar. Otherwise you get the situation where user-facing maps and routing apps tell people to "turn left onto the U3064" to which the obvious answer is "the what?!". It's not really practical to expect every single user-facing app to build in a long list of exceptions for each country (e.g. "never announce C or U refs in the UK").

In general, don't assume a 1:1 mapping between OSM terminology and UK legal terminology - the words are often similar but OSM terms have their own meaning through custom. "ref" doesn't mean "any road number". "unclassified" doesn't mean "any unclassified road". OSM doesn't really do "established and authoritative documented" - we're not that kind of project :) - but this has been hashed out on the talk-gb list several times over the years if you're interested.

Anyway, trivialities aside, thanks for your mapping - great to see your contributions.

cheers
Richard

Thanks. Yikes - that's a horribly out-of-date document and shouldn't be used for anything at all. I'll edit the wiki accordingly.

Could you say which page in particular? There are several contradictory pages on the wiki.

Hi Mike - could I ask why you've deleted this relation? I was out walking in Shropshire the other day and saw clear waymarkers for it.

Hi - if you reclassify roads to highway=residential, could you please make sure you delete the tiger:reviewed=no tag at the same time? Otherwise it looks like the road is unreviewed from the original TIGER import and cannot be relied upon to be a drivable/cyclable road. Thank you.

Hi! Great to see all the work you're doing - especially adding surface tags.

The highway=secondary surprises me a bit - a road like this would usually be tagged highway=unclassified. In developed countries in OSM, highway=secondary is almost always a paved road with a centreline. OSM doesn't use State or Federal Functional Classification systems.

If you'd like to discuss it more widely then the talk-us mailing list is probably the best place to do that - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/