Reverted.

You have deleted a very large number of roads from OSM. Perhaps you didnt read the initial screen which says you are NOT editing a personal copy. Removing data of this kind can inconvenience any users wishing to use the maps on-line and can break applications which get data from OSM immediately after the deletion.

It's an unintended Vespucci feature. It assumes that (unless you've flushed the data) the next address will have the same postcode as the last. Normally I spot it and delete the postcode.

I've mentioned it to Simon, perhaps I need to file an issue.

Please fix typos directly & don't send me messages. I'm trying to input a lot of data from 2 big trips whilst my memory is still clear, so I know the data is unlikely to be perfect.

Typos do happen. I imagine it's NG16 like everything else in Awsworth

Please do not map linear road/highway features as areas. The tag highway=motorway will generally be used for routing by a wide number of applications. Introducing a second element for the same object is also frowned on (one feature one element). If you do want to map the areas of highways please use area:highway=* as documented on the wiki. This will not render, but a) you can render it yourself; b) it will be much more usable in the future. You could also request the rendering team to render very wide highways with a wider width.

Welcome to OSM.

One point: I'm not at all sure that Civil Aviation Authority documents (or those of Eurocontrol) are a permissible source for OSM data. They either need to have an suitable open licence or we need a letter saying that we can use the information to add stuff to OSM. A further complication is that stuff may be based on OSGB mapping too.

Could you please clarify the licence for this documents (it's not shown on the PDF).

Sorry for being awkward on your first edit, but keeping OSM data clear of potential copyright issues is something we need to keep an eye on.

Is the Cambridge RUFC ground in Newnham really operated by the University? My understanding is that the club owns the ground with the exception of a 5m ransom strip which is owned by Kings, but presumably leased to CRUFC. Certainly a few years ago there was no sign of the university when it ran into financial problems through overextending commitments.

I realise this changeset was mainly fixing minor errors, but it's rather difficult to review the changes when the area covered is so large.

Changes like converting existing areas to multipolygons can be quite confusing, because one sees tags deleted from ways.

Lastly I note one or two over corrections: I added tree-row to lines of trees because it is non-trivial to identify such things using geographical position on its own; the note on the gallery was appropriate whereas description is not (the actual archives are located elsewhere & someone may then intrepret the description as saying this is the location of the archives).

Just to let you know that I have removed the wikidata/wikipedia tags from two of the flagpoles you added here. Please reserve such tags only for the equivalent object (i.e., wikipedia=Malaysia only belongs on the country). If you want to provide the extra information prefix the tag with extra text. In particular these tags are used by Nominatim to adjudge which elements are important, so the flagpoles were getting undue prominence.

I dont think you meant waterway=lock_gate in this edit. Probably barrier=gate, access=no, note=locked. The adjacent access point should be tagged barrier=stile, stile=stepover, step_count=2, material=wood and ideally the footway should cross the stile not go through the gate

Je penser que la route de Plounevezel a Coatilouarn est signé Straed Koatiloarn, égalementle hameau est signé "Koatiloarn" au point ou i'l quitte la Route de Brest (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/xrkzHorcxNtvwgyH8FVMgA). Je suggère "Koatilouarn" pour la nom de hameau, Straed Koatilouarn" pour la route, est name:fr pour les tags existant. Il y a deux ans et je n'avais aucune chance de rechercher les noms de rues a Plounevezel. Mais, j'ai eu l'impression que ils sont tous en breton.

Salut, Jerry

Very long time back, but way/59305357 is tagged with designation=bridleway. Can you remember/check if this should be designation=public_bridleway. Just going through some of the less usual values for the tag in the East Midlands.

My apologies, didnt check closely enough. Thought it was unusual?

I presume the bridleway past Stoke Bardolph (59305357) should be designation=public_bridleway? Just looking at more unusual values.

Yeah the meetings are religious ones: quite a lot of non-conformists didnt use the word church. I'll change it: would have mapped it ages ago but didnt know which building. Shame you're not mapping now: you did a great deal in a short time. If you're a walker I can recommend hunting down public rights of way: it doesnt spoil the walk too much & takes one to new places.

Shouldn't the Quaker Meeting House in Mosedale be mapped as a place of worship? You've added it as a community centre.

Thanks. BTW this changeset comment very useful. I was wondering why the lights were on when I saw it from the tram.

I wonder if the Carshalton Beeches should be promoted to a suburb with places like Carshalton-on-the-Hill as neighbourhoods. When I lived & worked around here 'Barrow Hedges catchment' was the key divide for Carshalton Beeches. The dividing line to N is a bit hard to pick out (everything S of railway should be OK, and the old Wallington & Beddington UDC boundary on East which IIRC runs up W edge of Stanley Park High School. Probably W boundary is to W of Banstead Road. So it's rather larger than just a neighbourhood.

Hi Kev,

I added a page on the wiki noting at least some of the things we need to track: osm.wiki/Nottingham/Broadmarsh_Re-development. I've just started updating some of the bus route relations from Broadmarsh: it's a big undertaking!

Jerry