There is no such thing as an official elevation of towns/cities in the UK. This seems to be more common in Europe and is indeed often shown on conventional topo maps. In Britain only spot heights are shown.

Adding an ele on an area is furthermore absurd. Elevations in Nottingham vary between around 23-24 at the Trent to around 100 m higher at Mapperley Top.

talk-ie covers the island: the townlands project, vice counties project and no doubt others have been island wide too.

I'd presume ways with admin_level=2 may even pre-date the use of relations for boundaries. Around 2009 tags on the way was still a common approach. Until relatively recently boundary relations were frequently broken so tags on ways meant that at least most of a boundary was rendered. However, broken boundaries have been very actively policed so that relations are now reliable. Remaining tags should really be removed now as they are redundant.

Please don't do this sort of thing: it's called tagging for the renderer. There are plenty of ways of rendering the boundary only inland (which I assume is what you want to do) without altering the tagging.

At the very least you need to discuss this with the Irish OSM community at the talk-ie mailing list. What you are doing is changing what has been pretty much the consensual way of mapping boundaries in Ireland for a number of years.

We're a bit puzzled by these edits. Boundaries are more or less entirely mapped with relations (and particularly so in Ireland), so there is no need to add the tags to constituent ways. In fact doing so can affect how the map appears as the boundary line may be drawn twice.

In case you haven't seen it there is some really detailed stuff on how boundaries are mapped in Ireland (osm.wiki/Ireland/Mapping_Townlands), and a website dedicated to them: https://www.townlands.ie/. In practice the bulk of all boundaries have been mapped.

A couple of points: 1) it looks as if there are some duplicated relations, for instance this way way/413106459 participates as an outer in 4 relations; 2) I suspect many, if not all, the areas mapped as water are actually dune slacks. I have a couple of photos from the S end of dunes (links will not last forever https://www.dropbox.com/s/00lxft672zt9hmq/IMG_2866.jpg?dl=0 & https://www.dropbox.com/s/mmqzsamm0emj0g7/IMG_2865.jpg?dl=0).

I'll leave the tagging for now as you have expended much time on micromapping this; but I think the tagging might need changing if someone collects information from a ground survey. If you get a chance to clean up any relations which arent needed this would be useful.
I came across these as I was reviewing old-style multipolygons (i.e., with the tags on the outer way not on the relation itself).

Hi Stan,

A couple of blog posts about footpath mapping & assessing completeness of PRoW information are: https://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/10-years-of-footpath-mapping-for.html and https://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/looking-for-footpaths-in-hickling-notts.html might help build the picture.

I very much doubt that the road name on these roundabouts is actually XXX roundabout, it is more likely to be the name of one of the roads (as for instance the junction of Donnington Wood Way with Celandine Road). It is the junction which carries the name not the road segments which form the junction.

@pigsonthewing: there is also a widely used genus tag, which is particularly appropriate for trees not identified to species (and generally useful because of the vagaries of the taxonomy of various street trees).

I generally go with access=private for staff entrances, car parks etc. I'm not sure that a specific tag for staff adds very much, but you could always look at subtagging. I doubt if anyone has tagged various lawns in Cambridge with access=master; access=fellow and access=scholar :-)

Operationally roundabouts determine priority at a junction: they typically need a minimum of 3 incoming & outgoing roads to be at all useful (of course there are cases with 2 roads whilst a 3rd is being built). These loops at ends of roads present no problems of this sort. I'd suggest the Maproulette challenge should add a test for numbers of input/output roads & if <3 then assume it is not a roundabout.

Turning circle is normally reserved for areas either at the end of the highway or along the highway which are enlarged enough for a car to turn: they are usually mapped with a node (the 115 which are not are likely errors https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=turning_circle). This is something different it is a oneway loop at the end of the road.

Can I add that the local convention in Nottingham is definitely NOT the addition of pavements as separate ways. Adding pavements makes the data harder to maintain and may complicate routing to the point that pedestrian routing no longer works. Adding a sidewalk tag is the local convention.

Thanks,
Jerry (SK53)

Can you please stop these edits immediately you are creating bad data way/369383412/history

Can you please stop needlessly changing Bing to bing. It totally obscures other changes which you are making. You're changeset comments are not adequate to understand what you are doing. Please discuss this type of edit with the local community first.

Indeed, this is a personal judgement, based on a single use case. There are tens of use cases for the mapping of trees (including "because they are there" & no single user has any arbitrary right to override what is mapped based on a use case. As long as things can be ground truthed (for instance by the pupils) then they belong in OSM.

Can you merge tags from nodes onto your mapped ways? At the moment there area number of duplicated shops (Caffe Nero, H&M etc) and some of these have different sets of tags. I would suggest using JOSM for this rather than iD.

Straightforward actually: if in doubt don't do it.

For hill elevations there are old out-of-copyright OS maps (and possibly some OS Open Data) or elevation from a GPS with a barometer etc. For business names there may be open data such as Food Hygiene, Companies House etc. The actual problem is not what one individual does, but what the collectivity of OSM contributors do: otherwise we could each copy 1 bit of data from, say OS maps, and acquire 500k. The other side is if we want people to respect OSM's rights we should respect those of others.

I a path is a public right of way you can add designation=public_footpath or public_bridleway etc. This helps distinguish any old path from ones which can certainly be used for country walks.

I know the original creator of the path round to the W of the cottage (although not through OSM), and would trust her mapping. The path you've added is on old OS maps as a footpath. Would be interesting to know if anything has changed.

Incidentally, this area, say around Buckleberry & Yattendon, had lots of missing rights of way.

Suspect it's time that some of these Pensic War nodes etc need to be removed! (presumably from 2011 event)

Hi Dyserth,

This tool is a good place to start (I've selected only the intersecting polygon option & pointed it N Wales): http://product.itoworld.com/map/109?lon=-0.17309&lat=51.53694&zoom=13.

I wrote something about these issues a long time ago, but it might still be useful as an overview: http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/exploration-of-bad-polygons.html.