Gigha locally, never Isle of Gigha. it's a gaelicised norse name as are others in the area (e.g., Muasdale), with the "a" bit meaning island, so "Isle of" would be tautologous.

highway=* with area=yes is a perfectly valid, and is very widely used on highway=service & highway=pedestrian. The fact that such areas: a) render in peculiar ways; and b) are hard for routing engines does not mean that they are errors. There are numerous other examples of areas which need to be routable (parkland for pedestrians) so the "routing over area" problem will not go away. The generally acceptable approach is to provide a notional way feature in addition to the area. If the highway is a true linear feature then it is permissible to change highway=primary & area=yes to area:highway=primary. This latter usage is common in Polish cities. Laybys mapped as areas should be changed to amenity=parking, parking=layby. Deleting information on OSM because it is inconvenient is rarely a good policy.

Yup a single diagonal cycleway is pretty much the best way of showing this. It loses a tiny amount of information that these were once through routes, but the current mapping also obscures this & is not accurate. At least it is routable. You can use area:highway to sow the area traversable by pedestrians

Given that this is clearly wrong (blackadder knows why I know that to be so)I suggest a straight reversion.

Hi Robert,

Welcome to OSM. I presume you live near Tamworth Road, Long Eaton or on the Toton side because this seems to fit with your comment. I'm happy to help get this tidied up so it's up-to-date. I only noticed this because you also seem to have inadvertently moved a road in Wollaton Park (Averton Square), and now I have a better idea of what you might want to do I'd like to fix that as well.

I see the houses by the Erewash were added a long time ago, so it's no surprise that stuff has changed.

Regards,

Jerry

Please don't break everyone else's usecases for your own. The way in which ceremonial counties are mapped on OSM has been that way for at least 10 years. By changing these to admin boundaries you confound many other applications. For postcode districts Geolytix used to have a useful shapefile (if a bit over detailed in places). To extract ceremonial counties just run an appropriate query using overpass save as geojson & convert to SHP. (e.g., http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GD but you need to use with overpass &, say wget)

Many thanks!

Hi Tom,

You added this path nearly 7 years ago. Someone is now stating that it is not a path: note/1698169#map=16/51.0244/0.2771&layers=N. It's not shown on the East Sussex definitive map. I just wondered if you can recall any details from when you mapped it.

Regards,

Jerry

Please do not use OpenStreetMap for fantasy maps such as this ski resort. All this data will now be deleted. Can you also use intelligible changeset comments (not a single letter).

Jerry SK53

I note that you've tagged a place as diet:vegan=yes and diet:vegtarian=no. As presumably any vegetarian can eat vegan food I don't think this is the best approach: it requires that anyone looking for vegetarian food has to examine both tags. This may work for your application, but may result in a large number of false negatives in other applications.

Is the Kingdom Hall in Liskeard really a Lutheran church. Seems a little unlikely in Cornwall. Kingdom Halls are usually Jehovahs Witness PoW.

Are you sure this is a Seventh Day Adventist Church? Usually Kingdom Hall signifies Jehovahs Witnesses.

I very much doubt that "Australie" is the normal description for the country, nor that a Kingdom Hall is a catholic church. The former should be addr:country=au, the latter is most likely denomination=jehovahs_witness

Hi & welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I was wondering if the track you have added the horse & bicycle permissions too is a public bridleway? If it is the additional tag designation=public_bridleway is very useful. Also if it is a track it's entire length then the highway tag can be changed to track. There is a map made with OSM data specifically focussed on public rights of way. The area around Hodsock looks like this: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14&lat=53.36164&lon=-1.08023. Contrast that with around Gringley-on-the-Hill https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14&lat=53.40398&lon=-0.89475. We had a day mapping footpaths around Gringley, but there's still loads of information (and paths) missing in this part of Notts.

I'm Nottingham-based so I don't do much around here.

Best wishes,

Jerry aka SK53

Some oneway tags missing I think on the ones you've added. Presumably a more recent version of OpenRoads than I had to hand.

Thanks for fixing this one

I presume use of landuse=village_green for woods in this changeset was an accident (e.g., by copying previous tags). I've corrected a few, but its quite likely I've missed some.

I'd be more persuaded that this is an OS error given that they also show it as a public road; it's not replicated onto the StreetView layers.

You added Bawburgh Road as a name to the track at way/232206196. This looks unlikely as it is not heading towards Bawburgh. Current public notices wrt compulsory purchase orders for the Hornsea 3 windfarm power cables at Algarsthorpe all mention Algarsthorpe as being situated to the N of Bawburgh Road. This image of the gate at the S end doesn't show any signs of it being named https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4858464.

Apologies then. I don't use it myself as I don't think its necessary. However it seems totally in contradiction to normal OSM practice of always using non-abbreviated names.