OSM fields are always text strings: they're just key-value pairs. So in parsing the data it's always necessary to be capable of handling unexpected characters. The figure you added is the ONS mid-year estimate which appears to be released under an Open Government Licence: which should be OK.

I must admit the SPARQL route whilst theoretically attractive is not as practical as having the population tagged directly on OSM. Most uses of population are probably comparative so the need for precision is not essential (at least in UK/Europe where cities don't double in size within 10 years), but that also means there is little incentive to keep them up-to-date I don't think the primary map render (Carto-CSS) uses population much at all: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/search?q=population&unscoped_q=population.

The burger place at 205-207 Normanton Road seems to be now called Yum Burgers (they added a note), but their website is not taking orders: https://yumburgerderby.co.uk/contactus.php

Wikipedia is not a suitable source for adding information to OSM: Wikipedia data may well come from sources with copyright restrictions. Also Wikipedia take a very loose view of rights "facts can't be copyright" whereas OSM, being based in the UK where "sweat-of-the-brow" data compilations are copyright, takes a much stricter view. Please don't do this: wikidata population figures can be obtained by SPARQL queries via the wikidata tag (this also means there is much less need to maintain population figures in OSM).

Can I suggest that you don't remove fhrs:ids even if they have disappeared. The presence of an unmatched fhrs identifier is usually an indication of a need for a survey (as in the case of the Co-op touched here).

Also in the past some authorities have simply 'buggered' up their datafeed (we lost 97% of NE Leics for quite a while & at least one authority CHANGED ALL fhrs:ids even for places with the same management). Also some of us have old FHRS files and even if the business has gone and old_fhrs:id can still be very useful for adding addresses. Lastly, if an address has been added from FHRS, it helps to be able to check the original source data sometimes.

Thanks, Jerry

Sherwood Forest CenterParcs was opened about 1990-91, as was the Longleat one. A friend of mine did the location planning. The whole CenterParcs business was owned by Scottish & Newcastle Breweries by the mid-1990s (their head office was a short distance away at Belle Eau park in Bilsthorpe at the former BP offices). I tried to sell them analytics for CRM around then. So, no they aren't recent and are very familiar in the UK environment, as are the much older holiday parks operated by Butlins and Pontins (some pre-war). Please don't be so condescending.

I have changed it back a little while ago.

@mboeringa: no I have no confusion about what tourism=chalet means, and as EdLoach says applying it to a whole holiday park is stretching its meaning way beyond what either the wiki or general UK mapping practices. Changing the meaning of a tag from this is a holiday home to this is a site with lots of holiday homes and missing out that it contains many other leisure facilities is highly misleading, particularly (whatever the Dutch usage) it does not accord with any description of the tag.

Sherwood Forest CenterParcs has had many many edits by OSMers who have obviously stayed there and have been perfectly content with tourism=attraction, which therefore appears to be the consensus. (I agree this is not perfect, but it's way better than what is there now).

I wonder why you chose to change tourism from attraction (which whilst not precise is accurate) to chalet which clearly is incorrect?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Thanks for adding this. I presume you meet in the church hall? We haven't mapped the church and the rest of the church premises separately, but this would probably be best. I'll have to check on more precise tagging for youth organisations like Boys/Girls Brigades: the most commonly mapped ones are those with their own meeting premises. I therefore expect that organisations such as yours are under-represented.

Yours,

Jerry (aka SK53)

a local (Nottingham) mapper

Reverted

Reverted

Reverted

Reverted

Reverted

Reverted

Reverted

Reverted

I have reverted this change as it contravenes OSM's on-the-ground rule, and the OSMF's Disputed Territories policy. Please respect how OSM does things: the status quo ante also represented the consensus views of many people including members of the Argentinian mapping community.

As I said there is no real boundary to the ski resort which can be meaningfully surveyed. There are multiple areas which different people might consider to correspond to Parsenn as a ski area, but these are mostly subjective and possibly based on marketing by the skilift companies under the Davos-Klosters banner. There are alternative methods such as a site relation encompassing the relevant pistes and lifts which I think is much more appropriate for European ski areas. This type of mapping really only makes sense in North American resorts which have a notion of in-bounds and out-of-bounds skiing. Note that in general the wiki is not always a reliable source of information.

We are not like Wikipedia who arbitrarily delete information which does not meet guidelines, but on OSM we general expect people to be mapping things which they know about. I would expect someone mapping ski resorts in this fashion to have at least skied there enough to be familiar with them. It is up to you to provide good quality information not for others to be expected to refine it.

My attention has been drawn to the landuse=winter_sports area you have drawn here. I don't think that this is a) accurate; b) useful; c) reflect real landuse. The actual landuses in the area are farming: hay meadows, pasturage on alpine and valley meadows, some gravel extraction etc; d) remotely reflect which areas are actually used by skiiers; e) accurately reflects the area known as Parsenn (either as a true toponym) or the ski area promoted by the lift company; f) includes areas serviced by the Klosters lift company usually under the name Gotschna. The long Parsenn runs to Saas, Conters, Kublis etc are very rarely in condition (perhaps a few days each season), require good local knowledge for navigation. Nowhere E of the railway is used for the kind of winter sports you are thinking about: in practice I think there are at most 3 descents from below the skilifts towards Wolfgang and Laret. The Gotschnawang area should be excluded (almost the same could be made for Drostobel, it's a very demanding run & not clearly marked last time I was there). There is no skiing beyond the S-side of Dorftaelli (and indeed with avalanche risk not close to the ridge either).
So I rather wonder what you are wishing to achieve with this object.

I've done as much as I can using Vespucci. Working out which buildings have been demolished to accommodate the new A&E requires a bigger screen. So will return to this shortly. In meantime yes I know there are crossing buildings.