Yes more detailed comments would be appreciated. We only realised 2 days ago that the Western Isles are a complete mess: there are likely to be coastline & boundary problems as we work to get islands to actually fit in the boundary. For reference when I started working on this again this morning JOSM was reporting a considerable number of coastline errors which it was not reporting last night. Also OSM Inspector shows several areas where there are two sets of coastlines: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=coastline&lon=-7.28798&lat=57.13385&zoom=12&overlays=coastline,coastline_error_lines,line_not_a_ring,line_overlap,line_invalid,line_direction,questionable,coastline_error_points,unconnected,intersections,not_a_ring,double_node,tagged_node.

I will be adding another changeset which *may* resolve some of these, but trying to fix ad hoc problems shown by OSM Inspector is likely to be counter productive as most coastline ways in this area will need to be progressively replaced by better geometries.

Using Google Maps is not permissible for adding data to OpenStreetMap. I note that many of your boundary changes elsewhere in the world have been erroneous. I would be very surprised if you have expertise on the minutae of the boundaries of San Francisco, New Territories & the City of London as they are so far apart. Furthermore as these are large populated places with many OpenStreetMap contributors I would also be surprised that the boundaries existing before your changes were accurate (as is certainly the case for the City of London).

As you note Google as a source I must revert this edit.

I'd suggest contacting the US Chapter of OSM direct. I'm aware of some sophisticated mapping for disabled access in various University campuses in the US: it's quite likely that at least one of these has been reported at a conference.

Otherwise checkout the German wheelmap site (http://wheelmap.org/en/map). The founder himself is wheelchair bound, and they are probably the most extensive provider of such access tags to OSM.

Mapping access indoors is still in its relative infancy on OSM. There is one excellent visualisation tool OpenLevelUp: http://openlevelup.net/.

In general it best to start quite simply: map entrances with straightforward wheelchair tags (the associated description tag is essential as it can provide the specific info for each place). Using an elevator=yes tag is an example of this too: it provides usable info, but without having to micromap the building.

444 N Wabash was already present as a building (sourced from Chicago Open Data). There are now two buildings at this location (with different numbers of levels too, 5 & 6).

The use of highway=elevator with a building tag also looks odd (the render assumes the whole area is dedicated to an elevator). A more usual way of indicating that something has a given property, but that property if not explictly mapped, is to add property=yes. So I'd suggest changing the highway=elevator tag to elevator=yes (around 1000 uses mostly with building or building:part http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/elevator), or explictly mapping the positions of the elevators. Note that the former has also been used with wheelchair accessibility tags.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but using Google imagery & other resource to contribute to OpenStreetMap is not allowed. Firstly it contravenes Google's terms of service. Secondly, it probably uses imagery from Google's suppliers in ways that are not allowed by the agreement that Google has with its suppliers. Thirdly, and most importantly from our perspective, it violates the contributor agreement which you agreed to when you signed up with OpenStreetMap. OpenStreetMap respects others copyrights for the simple reason that we want people to respect our copyright.

Any edits where you have used Google imagery are liable to be deleted in their entirety. In the meantime please confine your edits to those imagery layers which are allowed for contributing to OSM (notably Mapbox & Bing).

Yes I understand why it was reverted: I was just particularly interested in seeing a pub mapped this way, and then realising that we have (at least) 2 different approaches in the UK.

Personally this is a talk-gb issue. By all means pass it on to tagging, but I don't place great faith on their judgement.

I suggest we move this conversation to talk-gb. There are interesting aspects of how we tag areas associated with various POIS: and obviously at least two different approaches.

No, this is a genuine difference in how people choose to map pubs, not "mapping for the renderer".

I can see the advantages of mapping the whole area : relationships are easily determined, but it has never been obvious to me (or many other mappers) that a pub car park is a pub. If I thought this was an important issue I'd suggest mapping the area as landuse=retail, with retail=pub & keep the pub tag (which is largely a pure POI not landuse based, unlike schools) for the building.

Yes but I find mapping the whole site including the car park as the pub counterintuitive (let alone the non-optimal rendering position of the icon).

I think the usual way is to have a way for the pub restricted to buildings, with ancillary areas: beer gardens, parking etc mapped separately. This does mean that the precise relationship between the car park & pub might be lost (I've even come across associatedParking relations to deal with this).

As a non-Indonesian I do not know what hospital:type=C might mean. I would suggest using a longer string so that it is easier to relate to hospitals elsewhere.

I've just added the Architectural Association on the W side of Bedford Square. It would be nice to grab the other house numbers next time you're in the area. Also I think there are a few Blue Plaques (e.g., https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Plaque,_13_Bedford_Square_-_geograph.org.uk_-_602909.jpg)

Great to see your first edit! Details like this need locals to keep things up to date, although mapping closed pubs is a regrettably common occurrence.

You can also add an area on the open land formerly occupied by the pub and add the tag landuse=brownfield.

@trigpoint has drawn my attention to this. If the buildings still exist I would advocate mapping them as polygons, tagged building=pub (provided this was what they were built for). On a general basis I'd agree with trigpoint, but I see no harm in adding a limited amount of historical info providing it does not interfere with mapping of what's there currently. Once you reach that point then OHM may be more useful (although then you need to research the dates pubs were active). You may be interested in the old pub layers on Evesham Mapped (http://www.evesham-mapped.org.uk/map/?z=12&lon=-1.95361&lat=52.07253&bgl=OSM,1,16&l=closedpubs) and OSM-Nottingham (http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=11&lon=-1.17732&lat=52.96221&bgl=OSM,1,18&l=closedpubs). Ultimately if mapping of this type of object becomes more widespread then we probably do need to use an alternative platform.

Did you not note the pub in Waltham when you did this survey

Must say when I lived in South London I never heard this name (and its sufficiently quirky that if I had I'd have remembered very distinctly). I would have called all of this area Streatham Vale.

The RMSM may not be a barracks, but it is certainly not a school as the tag is generally used on OSM: i.e., a place for education of 3-18 year olds. I have changed this back to landuse=military & added mlitary=training_establishment

This was mapped way before Bing imagery was available. Things may have changed of course, but as usual the best answer is a ground survey.

These dont exist anymore, are not visible and certainly havent been for at least 20 years (probably nearer 75+). They should not be mapped on OSM. By all means add the historical London Tram Network to OHM, but not to OSM.

Yes easy enough as it was a photo survey: clothes & shoes.

I hope that before you did this edit that you checked with the original creators of the nodes tagged with building=entrance, notably David Earl. Many of these refer to buildings in Cambridge University, and such tagging may be needed by the in-house university map. It would be a real shame if in tidying up tags you broke an application used by thousands of people.

Such edits have been reverted by DWG in the past.