Hi thanks for contributing to OSM Mapping for Nepal.

I wonder why you changed the track into Manang into an unclassified road. My latest information from 1 year ago is that there has been little progress with the 'Chinese Road' and no bridges are in place. Unclassified road is only suitable if the road is used by 4-wheeled vehicles. As far as I know this is not the case in the valley around Manang.

If you have some more up-to-date information please let me know.

I've now reverted this change. not:name is a) important to show that official maps have the incorrect name and thus allow feedback to them; b) show other mappers that names on open data sources are wrong; and c) is important in derivation of statistics showing missing road names.

Usually the best way is to find a suitable tag. So a haulage yard typically fits with landuse=depot (not obvious I know). For the lagoon I'd move this over to a description tag rather than a name tag. If you call it locally "The Lagoon" then use a loc_name tag rather than name tag. As an example see this pub: way/96318682. What's the difference? The name tag should usually be easily determined by any mapper; a loc_name really requires familiarity with the local area to a) either know a place has a name; or b) to know such a name is in use.

Thanks for adding info to OSM.. You might also like to add amenity=dentist, so that things like a search for "dentists near cambridge" will also work.

Two things with this change:

1. You have removed information that this used to be a sports centre. We find such information useful in Nottingham, particularly when using Open Data from the city which may not be completely up-to-date.

2. I have no particular objections to the tag lesiure=fitness_centre, and appreciate the advantages it has over amenity=gym. However by altering one element you have introduced inconsistency in tagging these objects in the Nottingham area. You have also therefore broken the view on OSM-Nottingham which shows gyms/fitness-centres. It's always best to ask about such things before making the changes.

Accessibility is not the same as permissible to use as a source for OpenStreetMap. Both Ordnance Survey mapping and Google Satellite images are fully accessible to anyone, but in neither case are these sources suitable for OSM. I'm also not clear what you mean by the Derbyshire Land Registry: The Land Registry of England and Wales is the cadastral authority, but context suggests that you are referring to Derbyshire as the Highways Authority.

Lastly I'd like to check that it is Castle Drive which is shown with a gate in the picture & not Castle Lane.

Welcome & thanks for editing OpenStreetMap. Unfortunately I don't think these individual paths are named "The Big Track" because they could equally be called "Trent Valley Way" (which also runs along these paths). Because of this we have a mechanism for naming routes which follow a path. This uses a relation of type=route. The Big Track has been mapped this way for quite a while: see relation/1387699. When the The Big Track followed Lenton Lane, the name was that of the street. The regular Standard rendering does not show this information, but if you click on the Cycle Map layer you can see the track clearly labelled.

Adding descriptive names (such as "footpath") is unnecessary, all such information is included in the tags and can be added if desired by data consumers. They do not belong in the main database. It's worth having a read of the Good Practices page on the wiki osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things.

SK53

PS. You have mis-spelt Towpath in later edits.

thanks, think I've fixed a few (caused by focus of editor being on tag window not edit window). Several probably could do with tiger_reviewed=no being removed

Hope I've caught them, mainly where "y" replaces a key value.

Thanks for the warning.

Hmm, had a quick search and cant see anything particularly dramatic, other than one or two ways with y=Texas, MO. This tag should be deleted (it's one of the useless TIGER Tags). Perhaps you caught any real nasties.

Shame its another yurp person doing the spotting!

Appears to relate to this closure notice: http://derbyshire.gov.uk/applications/rights_of_way/TempClosures/TC2129.pdf & https://derbyshire.gov.uk/leisure/countryside/access/rights_of_way/path_closure_register/search_the_register/details.asp?AppID=4807&men_1975=Swarkestone

There are several simple rules of thumb which you ignored:

1. Am I improving the semantic value of OSM by changing a tag. Moving something to a note does not do so.
2. Has the tag been accepted by other mappers. In this case several mappers had made changes to the object without changing the maker key.
3. If it aint broke dont fix it.
4. If the meaning of a tag is obvious (as this one is) and you do not know of a more widely used alternative leave it alone.
5. If you are not clear about the intentions of the original tagger, ask them! That's why we have a messaging system & changeset comments.
6. Local knowledge and mapping things by visiting places results in better mapping than global edits. Informing people in an area of possible alternatives to tags they use, helps everyone.
7. Tags with low usage numbers are not intrinsically wrong, just not used very much.

This has already been reverted, we will check other changesets made around the same period and may revert those. Please do not remove tags with a small number of values unless a) they are obvious typos, or b) you have checked with the people who added the tag/local editors.

Can I second this, and add I have sent you a PM about other deletions.

Certainly was!

Also for the business you can add things like website=www.somebusiness.com (or whatever), telepone=0123456789 and opening_hours=Mo-Sa 09:00-18:00 (or whatever), all of which while not showing on the main OSM site get picked up by other OSM-based products. Also adding postcodes (usually as addr:postcode) can be very helpful as it works towards having more information of the type people with SatNavs like. Feel free to ask more.

You might want to add something a bit more than just the name to this edit if you want it to show up. Simply adding building=yes would be a start. I note that there is John Deere supplier at this location, so shop=agricultural_machinery might also be something of use. HTH

Many thanks for such a comprehensive first edit. I'm impressed that you added tags for things like desire line paths. It's particularly nice to have additions in this area: there's still a lot to do in Nottingham itself so none of us do that many trips to map this far from the city.

I have one small request: when mapping public rights of way could you also add a designation tag (designation=public_footpath, public_bridleway etc). Not only does this enable production of outputs which are familiar to users of Ordnance Survey paper maps, but helps plan survey work to map missing paths. For some background on East Midland footpath mapping and mappers see @dudone/diary/34437, or something I wrote about Hickling http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/looking-for-footpaths-in-hickling-notts.html (there's other stuff on my blog too).

I have removed the address tag as it is clearly incorrect. To do so I used FHRS Open Data to add addresses to the mapped POIs along Clayport and Market Streets. The addresses are in the 30s at the junction with Clayport Street. Furthermore a simple web search shows Cafe Delicious at 39 (but this data may not be admissable to OSM). I would suggest following a basic rule about adding things like addresses from notes or user reports, which is ensure that there is an independent piece of evidence to support the statement in the note. Also always be very cautious about using the placement of the note as a source of precise geolocation.

Interesting, possibly an editor bug in potlatch 2.0, or a keyboard glitch (which I've noted in past couple of days), or just possibly a case of editor not loading everything. I was almost entirely using the simplify option to reduce the node count on TIGER imported ways, which then makes it WAY easier to then improve their geometry. So I dont think I was doing any specific node edits & AFAIK the simplify method doesnt touch nodes with tags or more than one owner.

As a (very) former resident it's good to know someone is keeping an eye on the Pittsburgh area.