In this changeset, node node/11151936875 was tagged with both emergency=defibrillator and waste=dog_excrement . Are both of these tags correct? (If there's a bin and an AED at the same place, I'd use two separate nodes.)

@paceban532 way/1257185613 is clearly not correct. You do realise that you are making changes to the live OpenStreetMap database don't you? You should only make changes that reflect the reality of what is on the ground. There is no such military base in Norwich, so someone will now have to take the time to undo your changes.

Many thanks. I've restored the highway=track tag .

As per the standard usage of the "not:" prefix, it means the object doesn't have a particular ref that's present in The Circuit (typically despite its proximity to the location in The Circuit of that AED). It's usage confirms that the OSM object isn't a match for that entry in The Circuit, and helps ensure other mappers won't add that ref by mistake in the future, or spend time checking it again later.

I presume we're talking about way/50904221 .

I just left the previous highway=* tagging when I added the PRoW tags.

The highway=* tag is usually more about the physical state of the route than, rather than usage. For shared-use cycle paths I normally go for highway=cycleway, as I think that's a better fit. (I don't subscribe to the whole highway=path thing.) That route is also tagged as part of the National Cycle Network, so it would make sense for cycling to be permitted on it and for it to be tagged as a cycleway.

In this changeset you added an AED at node/11432902393 . However, there was already an AED mapped by the village hall at node/10814728047 .

Do you know if there are indeed tow AEDs this close together? Or is there just one, and if so is your location the right one?

Could you check on the AED you added at node/11434856969 ?

The location description says "newbold revel reception", but that location would seem to fit this node instead: node/11434847270 .

Also, there's already an AED mapped nearby in this village at node/321766503 . Is there actually another one at node/11434856969 ?

The changeset is from a while ago, and was made using Potlatch. The wpt_*, ele, and name keys indicate that I'd used a feature of Potlatch to import waypoints from a GPX track I'd recorded, and then manually adjust them.

wpt_description=G is my shorthand for a gate. It looks like I've added the correct tagging for that, but then forgot to remove the other automatic tags from the GPX file. I'll remove them now.

Many thanks for confirming. That presumably means that https://www.specsavers.co.uk/stores/derby is the store website for both units.

In this changeset, you created the way way/890977659 and mapped is as a branch of the stationery/craft/book chain "The Works". It seems unlikely this chain would have a shop here given its location, so are you sure this part of your edit was correct?

Hi Analyst221,

Could I ask what you were trying to do in this changeset?

It appears that the only change you've made is to remove the highway=track tag from way/171665338 . This change would only be appropriate is there is no longer a physical track present on the route.

The route is also a Public Bridleway, so I don't think it's likely that it's no longer a track, even if there's some access restrictions now in place.

Hi,

In this changeset you seem to have added some leisure=picnic_table tags to an existing emergency=defibrillator object, which is located inside a building:
node/3536172639/history

This seems a rather odd combination of tags, particularly if it's inside a building. Could you check if this is what you intended to do?

Hi John,

In this changeset, you appear to have added emergency=defibrillator and defibrillator:location=* tags to the cycleway way/28851463 . Presumably this wasn't intentional, and those tags should have been added to a separate node somewhere.

Could you take a look and see if you can fix it? Many thanks!

Hi, I was just wondering if way/1199453157 is actually a Biergarten (as you've tagged it) as opposed to the British concept of a "Beer Garden" (which is something different). See amenity=biergarten .

The main issue is that "The Circuit" (as a name) might not be globally unique. Including the GB in the OSM key, gives users more a a clue as to what the underlying dataset might be. Yes you could use geolocation - but then what's the point of ever including the country code in a ref key?

AIUI, those UUIDs are actually generated randomly, so I don't think they're technically guaranteed to be unique. But in any case, it's a GB specific data-set, and I think that's the important thing for the OSM key.

If I don't know that the next edit will need the same changeset comment and source tags, then generally I save straight away. This avoids, either overly general comments, or accidentally attributing the wrong comment/source to an earlier edit.

Hi mintsoft,

You've tagged the building/store relation/15949142 that you added in this changeset with both "Iceland" and "Lidl" information, but only given it the name "Lidl" Is this some sort of single combined store, or are there two separate stores? If so, it would be better to map them as two separate OSM objects.

Equally, if one is a concession within the other store, then it would still be better to have two separate OSM objects.

Also, I'm a bit curious as to why you've used a multipolygon for the store building here. Perhaps the previous combining of the Lidl and Iceland stores from way/199077828/history and way/199077829/history was done by accident.

Could you have a look and see if the mapping needs adjusting?

Yes definitely! Not sure what I was doing there. Probably either an auto-complete mistake, or I didn't realise all the buildings were still selected when I was trying to add amenity=bar to one specific object.

There's also brewery=various on the same objects. Perhaps it was an accidental replication from node/6712715881/history ?

In this changeset you added an AED at node/10820165606 . But a few minutes earlier you'd added another one almost in the same place at node/10820142007 .

Am I right in thinking that this was an accident, and there should actually only be one AED at this location?