Because the precise source isn't clear. It does clearly state it contains Royal Mail data (CodePoint Open) which is inadmissable for OSM. As I state above, volunteers from OSM have gone to a great deal of trouble to create tools to help in situations like this: such tools we know to be clean and designed to avoid potential copyright problems. Therefore please use them and not some other website which might or might not provide the same data.

OK I've now reverted it, and re-added the name from Ordnance Survey StreetView OpenData. This may have been the source on Streetview, but I would strongly suggest using OSM-based tools & facilities for such things. We have tiles of OS Streetview, missing roads (OS Locator), and OSLocator Musical Chairs (this road here http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=956185).

Normally I dont trust OS data on its own now. We have so few missing roads that its only newly built ones which I use without other sources. In your case you presumably have a Mapbox error report, so that sort of counts (one can never be sure someone isnt looking at a copyright map).

This is an inadmissible data source It contains copyright information. I'm afraid I have to revert this change.

Can you please use source tags on ways & changesets. You have added Tong Moor Side as a name after another one of your MapBox colleagues added a note about it. However Bing imagery gives no clues about the name. Neither of you are local mappers, so I would like to know the basis for changing the name.

Yeah, I think SomeoneElse & others have pointed out that there are buses with no routes other than the stops need to be visited in order.

Thanks. It is right now. 'Cos the Circle line was messed up yesterday I ended up boarding this at Euston Square. At some stage will load photos from top deck between Euston & Stoke Newington. I like adding stops to relations, but stop positions are IMO a waste of time (not least because there might be 2-3 bus at a time).

I have a feeling that route 73 goes into the bus station area in front of Euston Station on the Vic->Stoke N direction

In this changeset you have added a place=neighbourhood of New Egham. This has recently been queried in an OSM Note. Certainly if asked I would have assumed this was part of Englefield Green, just as is shown on OS StreetView. I wonder what evidence you have for this name: I am aware that many of your additions come from OS StreetView or 1:25k maps, but this name does not feature on them.

Fine, I agree the tagging could do with improving. I suspect adding fitness_centre was a quick fix in order to be able to remove the descriptive name. In this case it would have been far better just to add a note rather than change the tagging: we're quite able to improve stuff if its brought to our attention. I would also add this is something where tagging is still in a bit of flux, perhaps because not so many have been mapped. They are appearing all over the place and the tagging will become better established soon.

You added a major power line across the middle of Stockport in this edit. I saw no evidence of it on the ground. Is it underground? What are the sources you used to identify this?

Strava, this one specifically http://labs.strava.com/routing-errors/#250/9/-1.34445/53.26357

Must say I was a bit disappointed to see landuse=forest added back on the tags for White River NF. Removing it really makes a huge difference around the ski resorts of Summit County. I appreciate other areas become rather white, but from talk-us I understood that removing the forest tags is the way to go.

According to a recently posted note the ferry between Newnham on Severn and Arlingham stopped shortly after WWII. You havent tagged the changeset or the way wtih source info. I'd be interested to know the source for this ferry.

More to the point nearly all these hill databases are derived from copyright OSGB data. So even if the db owners gave permission, the data will contain OSGB derived data. That's why many heights come from NPE/Provisional 1:25k maps which are out of copyright. Equally most of this info can be merged with OSM without importing it, thus avoiding the awkward stuff about permissions/copyright on the OSM side.

First dont rely on the wiki "tracks are for agricultural use". This may be applicable in Germany. In Britain I suspect we will use track or service for any non-public ways which vehicles can be seen to traverse. Most indeed will be for agricultural purposes (including things like Pheasant & Grouse shoots), but many will just provide rough & ready access to whatever facility people are using. For instance many railway lines will have access tracks used by maintenance crews. Also be aware that UK farms are large and often have fields well away from any farmyards.

I'm all for reverting this changeset. OSM is about mapping things, not dealing with how OSM data is processed by tools. If tools cannot deal with real-world cases then fix the tools not the data. As it existed the data was previously treated as expected by osm2pgsql. If osm2pgsql changes the way it processes polygons then I'm sure we would notice in rendering output. These edits fix a putative problem not a real one, and introduce a more serious one.

As an aside multipolygon does not any kind of formal specification. It has implementations which may be regarded as de facto specifications: but there are as least two current widely accepted behaviours for multipolygons. Some, but be no means all of this described (not specified) on the wiki).

I should also add that these areas are an important experiment in working out how to map woodland areas in detail. See my blog passim for some of the issues.

In summary, revert.

Excellent, the sort of thing only someone local might pick up.

If you connect the two ends of the path to the roads (Ravenwood & Knowles Avenue) then this can also be used for pedestrian routing. Ask if you need specific advice how to do this (either here, OSM messaging or email: SK53 dot OSM at gmail.com)

Many thanks: exactly the sort of extra detail we hope people will add. If it is also signposted with a public footpath sign, you can also add the tag designation=public_footpath; if not leave it as it is.

Wikipedia is not a suitable source for adding data to OSM. It may well contain copyright information. Please also have a look at long and unresolved discussions of use of name:ua, name;ru etc for British placenames.

Any idea why you deleted the PRoW leaving Foolow at S edge of village towards Eyam? Or was this just a mistake?