Despite what the wiki say, sidewalk=none is actually the preferred tag. key=yes|no are best used in binary situations; whereas sidewalk=yes broadly means I have noted there is a sidewalk on at least one side of the street, sidewalk=no is presumed to mean a definitive survey statement which does not fit with the both|left|right values. The number of sidewalk=no values will be inflated by edits such as yours. I'm sure most consumers will handle both values so no harm done.

We do have an important principle in OSM: respect for fellow contributors. You are distinctly failing to show that respect to me or others. Quite frankly I think we are better off without your arrogant attitude and unwillingness to collaborate.

The reason why the note has not been cleared is that someone has not made the journey to S. London to check if "Lonesome" is signed or otherwise visible on the ground. We value actual real surveys which can be checked by others. Contrary to your opinion this is a strength, not a weakness of OSM.

Please let me assure you that any further changes you make with respect to place nodes will be referred to the Data Working Group.

Thank you. I know perfectly well what Nominatim is: the current maintainer is a friend.

For this sort of issue you should be filing issues on the Nominatim github pages https://github.com/openstreetmap/Nominatim/issues. I suspect that the issue is known, but we have too few developers and maintainers to resolve such problems.

Nominatim is just one of thousands of applications consuming OSM data; there is a well understood rule of editing OSM data "Don't edit for the Renderer" (and this applies to routing software, geocoders etc). For instance by changing these nodes you probably break the searches on Garmin devices which use the same data.

Lastly, "be bold" is a wikipedia policy not generally one advocated for OSM. Consensus is valued: and when thousands if not millions of people have been able to use the data without changing it that implies a very substantial consensus. Additionally your edits were discussed by a small number of experienced editors, and the view was that given the significance of the changes it was important to revert them quickly before corrections were made piecemeal. Normally we like to give the original editor a chance to discuss their edits before doing a reversion. In this case the next person to notice the accidental substitution of suburb for Ilford would have made restoring the original data rather more complex.

That is not to say that there may not be oddities: it's best to highlight these using the notes feature. See for example this note note/547502#map=15/51.4096/-0.1310&layers=N

Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets.

Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets.

Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets.

Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets. In this one you also changed Ilford's name to "suburb"

Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets.

Undiscussed major change. Will be reverted.

I've further tweaked this by squaring the corners of the building (all editors provide an option to do this, in the one you used it's the rectangle option or shortcut key "S"). I'm afraid a lot of the houses round here could do with tidying up.

Much as I love Western Blots this has nothing whatsoever to do with OSM.

I very much doubt the buildings with name=Beaconsfield Street are actually called that. I imagine the tag should be addr:street. Please do check when tweaking tags that they actually make sense!

There is no such thing as an official elevation of towns/cities in the UK. This seems to be more common in Europe and is indeed often shown on conventional topo maps. In Britain only spot heights are shown.

Adding an ele on an area is furthermore absurd. Elevations in Nottingham vary between around 23-24 at the Trent to around 100 m higher at Mapperley Top.

talk-ie covers the island: the townlands project, vice counties project and no doubt others have been island wide too.

I'd presume ways with admin_level=2 may even pre-date the use of relations for boundaries. Around 2009 tags on the way was still a common approach. Until relatively recently boundary relations were frequently broken so tags on ways meant that at least most of a boundary was rendered. However, broken boundaries have been very actively policed so that relations are now reliable. Remaining tags should really be removed now as they are redundant.

Please don't do this sort of thing: it's called tagging for the renderer. There are plenty of ways of rendering the boundary only inland (which I assume is what you want to do) without altering the tagging.

At the very least you need to discuss this with the Irish OSM community at the talk-ie mailing list. What you are doing is changing what has been pretty much the consensual way of mapping boundaries in Ireland for a number of years.

We're a bit puzzled by these edits. Boundaries are more or less entirely mapped with relations (and particularly so in Ireland), so there is no need to add the tags to constituent ways. In fact doing so can affect how the map appears as the boundary line may be drawn twice.

In case you haven't seen it there is some really detailed stuff on how boundaries are mapped in Ireland (osm.wiki/Ireland/Mapping_Townlands), and a website dedicated to them: https://www.townlands.ie/. In practice the bulk of all boundaries have been mapped.

A couple of points: 1) it looks as if there are some duplicated relations, for instance this way way/413106459 participates as an outer in 4 relations; 2) I suspect many, if not all, the areas mapped as water are actually dune slacks. I have a couple of photos from the S end of dunes (links will not last forever https://www.dropbox.com/s/00lxft672zt9hmq/IMG_2866.jpg?dl=0 & https://www.dropbox.com/s/mmqzsamm0emj0g7/IMG_2865.jpg?dl=0).

I'll leave the tagging for now as you have expended much time on micromapping this; but I think the tagging might need changing if someone collects information from a ground survey. If you get a chance to clean up any relations which arent needed this would be useful.
I came across these as I was reviewing old-style multipolygons (i.e., with the tags on the outer way not on the relation itself).

Hi Stan,

A couple of blog posts about footpath mapping & assessing completeness of PRoW information are: https://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/10-years-of-footpath-mapping-for.html and https://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/looking-for-footpaths-in-hickling-notts.html might help build the picture.

I very much doubt that the road name on these roundabouts is actually XXX roundabout, it is more likely to be the name of one of the roads (as for instance the junction of Donnington Wood Way with Celandine Road). It is the junction which carries the name not the road segments which form the junction.

@pigsonthewing: there is also a widely used genus tag, which is particularly appropriate for trees not identified to species (and generally useful because of the vagaries of the taxonomy of various street trees).