Could I ask where you got the postcode of IP6 9BE for way/856060302 from in this changeset? As far as I can tell from its location in Code-Point Open, IP6 9BE belongs to Church Lane, Westerfield. See https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/IP/IP6/9/#9BE

The tagging on way/754521031 and way/754521032 looks a bit odd. Is the start date really 1964, and should they be tagged as amenity=crematorium ?

Hi,

In this changeset you added two new objects and tagged them with amenity=letter_box: node/7049322398 and node/7049310882 .

Are these two objects standard Royal Mail post boxes for the public to use to post letters addressed to a variety of other people/businesses? If so, they should be tagged as amenity=post_box instead.

The tag amenity=letter_box is for private boxes for use by postmen and others wanting to deliver mail to a specific address.

See amenity=post_box and amenity=letter_box

Probably a mis-click in iD meant my typing went in the wrong place. Anway, it's now fixed, thanks.

You created way/865416147 in this changeset, which is tagged with name=Big C, and also shop=supermarket and brand:wikidata=Q858665 . That wikidata tagging is for a Thai supermarket chain: http://www.bigc.co.th/ . Is the "Big C" here actually a shop for the Norfolk cancer charity of the same name? If so shop=charity and brand:wikidata=Q99528814 would be more appropriate tags.

Hi again. As I haven't had a response, I've now removed the designation tags from those ways. If you do have evidence that they should be Rights of Way, then please feel free to add them back.

In this changeset you've created way/853715756 which is tagged with both building=construction (a building still under construction) and shop=supermarket (a currently operating supermarket). Surely it can't be both?

If it's still being built and not open yet, I'd suggest changing the tagging to construction:shop=supermarket. If/when it is open, then this and the building tag should be updated.

A couple of the edits you've made in this changeset have involved changing a correct brand:wikidata tag value of Q98456772 for Tesco Express, to the more general one Q487494 for Tesco. This is probably the fault of iD's use the Name Suggestion Index, prompting you to make such a change. But it's as well to check such suggestions are correct before applying them! (The Name Suggestion Index has been updated to use Q98456772 for Tesco express, but it hasn't made it to a release yet.)

Are you sure node/2137467867 is a Morrisons? And if it is, surely it shouldn't be a supermarket.

Thanks -- I think you're right. I've move the website as you suggested. (It seems that the outlets they have inside "The Range" stores don't appear as branches on the Iceland website.

Is the store at way/849300166 open yet? If not, I think it would be better to tag it as shop=construction construction=supermarket for the time being.

Indeed. See https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/4087 .

Yes, because there doesn't seem to be a specific Wikipedia page for the "Currys PC World" brand. I could only find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currys and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_World_(retailer) , neither of which would be correct.

I could be mistaken, but my recollection is that there was never any consensus on what tag to use for unsigned highway ref's other than not using ref=*.

For me highway_ref=* is preferable to highway_authority_ref=*, since the former is consistent with prow_ref=* (we don't use surveying_authority_ref for PRoWs) and the latter could be mistaken for the reference number of the Highway Authority rather than that of the Highway. (In general, I think the tag should refer to what the ref it is rather than who is ascribing it.)

Could I ask where the routes/alignment of the footpaths way/840989696 and way/840989697 came from? They don't match the GIS data from Suffolk CC for the public footpath, and looking at aerial imagery it seems unlikely that what you've mapped is the alignment of a physical path on the ground. (Any path on the ground would be much closer to the field boundary, and probably wouldn't cut through the wood.)

It was over 5 years ago, but I doubt I would have used a campus map for any of the changes there. The comment suggests I used Bing aerial imagery, and some local knowledge. (Around that time I stayed in Manchester for a week while attending a conference in the Alan Turing Building.)

Thanks for spotting that, but you guessed incorrectly. It's just a basketball hoop, without a bench. "hoops=1"="bench" should just have been "hoops"="1". (The result of typing "=" rather than "tab" in JOSM no doubt.) I've now removed the erroneous amenity=bench.

BTW: If you're commenting on a single object in a large changeset, it would be easier for readers if you included a direct link to the objects in question. In this case it's node/7597794372 .

Just wondering if you've made a typo with royal_cypher=àrtVR on this postbox: node/7107294126 ...

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/84100810 where the changeset comment is: Revert changeset/83959214 following consultation with mapper: Unlicensed source was used to add postbox ref=* tags.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/84100799 where the changeset comment is: Revert changeset/83959590 following consultation with mapper: Unlicensed source was used to add postbox ref=* tags.