Barry, This may be a good candidate for a rule in the Name Suggestion Index (e.g., https://nsi.guide/?t=brands) which would enable other editors to add the correct operator.

Jerry aka SK53

@gurglypipe: I agree with you, but what Paul describes is the broad consensus of the UK community.

I personally feel that defining addr:* tags as related to postal information only was a mistake: but it was exactly what the Karlsruhe scheme designers intended. It does mean that for non-postal uses of address, OSM data as it stands is less useful and needs some kind of post-processing. For a long time I've even avoided using addr:city and addr:suburb at all because of the non-obvious meanings. But, I do accept I'm now in a minority.

Hi,

You seem to be adding things which don't exist. OSM is used by real people to do real things in real life: please dont use it to see how things might be.

Regards,

Jerry aka SK53

Source image for VR royal_cypher: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=175971688130124

I think it's more useful to mark all the roads as access=no & also all the Wanderwege above Vazerol & below Brienz are closed as well.

I've added a short wiki page just to try and cover these somewhat obscure keys: osm.wiki/Tagging_of_peak_lists_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland

Why not consult the local community who are very active instead of just tag-fiddling!

A Munro top is not a Munro. Whilst it's worth discussing whether munro_top or munro:top=yes or munro=top are sensible tag choices, changing a tag so that the meaning is incorrect doesn't help overmuch.

Stara Łaźnia has accommodation too (two floors I think, and about 10 rooms): can either add tourism=hotel/guest_house or accommodation=yes, with optional rooms=*.

Fixed now.

Hi,

Unfortunately both findmystreet and findmyaddress contain data copyright to GeoPlace.

Clause 3.2 of the End User licence states:

The End User shall:
a) ensure that the Streets Data is not copied, adapted, varied or modified except to and only to the extent to which any of those acts are expressly permitted by this Licence;
b) ensure that it does not use the Streets Data for any Competing Activity or Commercial Activity;

Clearly this activity violates both sections here (this is copying the data & I would have thought OSM would be regarded as a competing activity by any reasonable person).

I have therefore reverted this changeset (in changeset/134734299). It may be necessary to redact it as well.

Sorry about this, but we do need to adhere to such terms scrupulously. In practice one only has to wait for a few months for such data to be available in other sources.

Regards,

Jerry aka SK53

It's best set to access=destination as access=private stops everything. Visitors can still walk & drive in & last time I was here there were Ocado vans everywhere!

UK users are likely to understand that this is marking a private (unadopted) road, but applications from elsewhere wont.

HTH,

Jerry aka sk53

Reviewed and removed/reverted.

Here's my local boatyard way/30923986. You can replicate the tagging if you wish. It looks as though we used landuse=industrial too.

Almost certainly related to this HOT activation; https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/2012-December/002483.html.

Unfortunately task descriptions from earlier instances of the HOT Tasking Manager do not seem to have been archived. Pierzen is the person to ask about this.

Came across this entirely by random. I think the thing to do is add the actual water monitoring station if location is known. This can then have the ref. I think I've mapped one air pollution monitoring location, and I know Andy (SomeoneElse) has been mapping flood monitoring gauges. I think this one is at Fell Foot.

I'd change the source to the EA site (the one added 404s): http://environment.data.gov.uk/bwq/profiles/profile.html?site=ukd1203-45700.

Given current level of pollution across England these might change too frequently for practical OSM use. See things like https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/08/sewage-could-leave-windermere-lake-ecologically-dead

The postcode probably should not be on the actual golf course as it applies to the administrative location in Machrihanish village itself (probably the Ugadale Hotel). The actual postcode from UPRN lookups seems to be PA28 6TJ (but this is not the postal address). All a bit of a mess.

It may have been there originally, but I thought you were using Robert Whittaker's site for checking: https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/NG/NG8/1/

Seem to have added wrong postcode for NG8 1BW