A lot of these tree rows look like ordinary hedges to me.

This way is shown as a track way/663786546, but on OS SV it is shown as an unclassified road. Also this one way/388898889/history#map=16/52.5825/-3.7757.

Presence of a casing on roads on OS StreetView is generally a pretty reliable indication that they are a metalled public road. Personally in the absence of a ground survey I'd trust this rather than views on aerial imagery.

Welcome to OSM,

Sorry I jumped the gun & added some stuff when you were going to do it anyway. Far better that someone who knows an area does the edits (I only used to pass through years ago on a long commute to Northampton).

Best wishes,

Jerry aka SK53

I've now tried to make the golf course cover most of the area which belongs to it including the club house. There are lots of areas of chalets around here which make it a little difficult to separate stuff out.

Fixed, I abhor landuse=grass in this situation (or leisure=pitch etc, golf=hole as a line). Any golf=* tags with the exception of bunker & hazards should be treated as default surface=grass. There's no harm in rendering fairway & green in different greens from the leisure=golf_course of course.

Late to the day, but you also changed shop=mobile_phone to office=telecommunication which is just wrong.

Yeah, it has another meaning: trees where the leaves go brown but are not dropped. This is a classic example a Beech hedge, but there are forests of this type (e.g., Pyrenean Oak in Spain). Wikipedia has a write up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcescence (and I must check the spelling). I noticed that there were documented tags for semi-deciduous and semi-evergreen but not for this rather more precise term, so I though this hedge was time to introduce it.

Hi Richard,

Around Nottingham we use shop=vacant and old_shop=xxx (partly because disused:shop=xxx doesn't discriminate between an ancient corner shop which has been someone's front room for 30 years and a shop which is between tenants for a couple of weeks). I also like it because it makes calculating vacant shop rates quite easy which in the current world is, I think, something of interest. We've also found it useful to have old shop/amenity names in the data ("the place next to where the Co-op used to be").

The actual FHRS Ids shouldn't change because they are (supposed) to be permanent identifiers of a combination of business/premise/management)., but not every council has got the message.

As for adding addressess that's excellent: it's really one of the reasons why I adovated using these in the first place.

Keep up the good work,

Jerry

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