This is not appropriate data for OpenStreetMap. It also does not comply with either the Imports or Mechanical Edit policy. At one point we had calculated post code centroids from Free the Postcode but these now get removed. However this edit will certainly duplicate some of these elements.

If you want good quality boundaries (& therefore centroids of Postcode Areas etc I recommend the Geolytix open data set).

As this edit has not been: a) discussed on talk-gb; b) mentioned on the imports list; or c) associated with an wiki page describing where the data comes from I am reverting it.

I appreciate that you are a newcomer to OpenStreetMap, and therefore might not be familiar with policies with respect to this kind of edit.

Now done

Yes, I plan to merge them in JOSM too tedious to do in PL2!

Please dont map individual occurences of Epipactis palustris. This is not appropriate information for OSM. Additionally this uses a tagging scheme which does not follow the well-established conventional tags for plants in OSM and natural=wetland is incorrect also. Plant distributions are much better recorded using the pre-existing databases (FloraWeb for instance in Germany).

I'm not clear what you are doing here. For mapping things in OSM you should use OSM tags and not an entirely separate tagging scheme with a very large number of redundant elements (lat/long, province etc). You should not use name, but species or taxon which are very well understood tags. Taxon in particular is designed to align with other external schemas). If the record is shared with an external source you can place a SINGLE tag for this providing any identifier is persistent. A single tag to an external database for taxon would also be OK. Adding very large numbers of tags which convey no extra information will just lead to database bloat.

I'd also like to be know if these data are your own. Use of Level0 to create data does not inspire a high level of confidence that these were actually surveyed. GBIF data itself is not licenced in a way compatible with OSM, and in most cases does not have adequate geographical resolution or quality controls to be a suitable candidate for an OSM import.

I dont actually care very much what the wiki says as it is often inaccurate. We certainly use amenity=social_club extensively in the East Midlands, but I do prefer to use it for places where non-members may be able to use facilities (eg. by paying a notional membership fee or by automatically be signed in as a guest). A good local example would be London Welsh's club house and many golf clubs. This certainly doesn't really apply at Ranelagh although I've been there as a guest when they've been hosting races. Club is therefore probably best.

Hmm, I dont really like this as amenity=community_centre! Is that what the wiki suggests, in which case it moves a long way from the usual meaning of the word in UK. Ranelagh Harriers like most sports clubs are a private members club not a community organisation. I'd suggest amenity=social_club or just amenity=club.

The building tagged Ranelagh Harriers isnt really a sports centre. It's a club house. It should have some club tags.

My problem is with you making large scale mechanical edits without discussing it with the community.

AFAIK this was discussed recently either on the UK mailing list or on talk-gb. As noted by John Grubb at the very least leave the existing tags in place as these are rendered.

In general we prefer that people discuss this type of change with the local community: not everything flagged by KeepRight is an error and tagging practices differ between countries.

Wrong comment: actually merged buildings & nodes of pub & social club to improve element legibility

OSM is very much about local input, something which looking at aerial images can't beat. And there certainly is a gradation between parks and recreation grounds anyway. So I'm very happy to defer to your knowledge here.

You can actually take the foopaths right to the main road. Dont actually worry that this is not in the park. It's what we call topological accuracy: it shows you can walk from the main road along the path into the park. When shown on the OSM map it's not noticeable because roads are drawn over paths.

I've just tried it out, and am surprised to find that it's not directly supported in the editor. You certainly did the best thing then. I'm asking the lead developer of the editor whether they can support landuse=construction.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I notice that you've been adding lots of footpaths in the countryside. If you are familiar with these (i.e., not using Google or similar search engine or OS Maps) it's very helpful to label those which are actually Public Rights of Way with the designation tag (see designation=*#Rights_of_way_in_England_and_Wales). For more generally about footpath mapping in Britain see http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/10-years-of-footpath-mapping-for.html.

Looks awfully like someone's garden (you? perhaps).

Reverted because not a park.

Thanks for adding these details. You can connect the footpaths to the surrounding roads and then they are routable.

I'm not sure that I'd call this a park, rather a recreation ground. This is incidentally what Bradford council call it in their official data, and also give it the name Haworth Road Playground, with the area to the S of the road being Haworth Road Recreation Ground.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The University of Nottingham is already mapped in considerable detail and we use "university" not school. If you wish for chinese names to be added you can let me know.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Parks, Playing Fields etc., are better mapped as areas rather than points.

The footpath you've added has foot=yes which overrides the general access=private. If this is just a private path for residents to access their back gardens (e.g., for dustbins etc), then it's best with just access=private. Footway implies its only accessible for pedestrians anyway.

If there are gates at either end it would be nice to see those added too: then it's clearer that not just anyone can use it as a cut-through. This sort of information is important there are 100,000s of people who use OSM data for personal navigation.

Thanks, I really need to get round to adding more buildings here.