I know it's a hell of a long time ago, but I just wondered if you remember anything about the post box on Thomas St, Armagh? Just reviewed my survey images and realised there's no sign of it on the street itself.

Funnily enough that's an easy one leisure=common, see leisure=common. It get's rendered green IIRC.

Hi & welcome to OSM,

I see that you have now added the relevant tag for the playing field from your first edit. Nice to see you getting the hang of it.

In general, it's better not to glue the edges of an area to the roads, but instead align them with the features visible on the aerial imagery. This is because the line representing the road marks the midline and the park/playing field doesn't extend that far. However, it is a commonly used editing shortcut.

I presume the playing field is used by the school. From what I can see on aerial imagery the whole area of the field is not used for this purpose. If that's the case it's better to reduce the size to the football pitch and playground. Both of these can be mapped in addition leisure=playground and leisure=pitch.

I presume you may be a keen Pokemon Go player: people who map parks usually are!

I imagine many streams in the area are a little inaccurate, the OS StreetView layer provides a more accurate background with more streams.

Be warned, editing OSM can also be addictive, and your local area offers lots of potential.

Regards,

SK53

Im sorry but I have to revert much of this. This is not a building named OSMF it is a private residence, which happens, for historical reasons to be the registered address for official correspondence.

Looks like it was mentor tag-fiddling changeset/24464842, but I now seem to have changed it to fix (wtf !?)

I dont either & sound mirror isnt spelt correctly.

I've now removed this duplicate.

You seem to have added a duplicate of the Crown Inn at East Rudham in this change, and at the wrong location (one street over). It didnt help that it was already mapped separately as a pub and a hotel. I happened to pass here in mid October and noted the pub at the time.

It is a highly dubious statement that "healthcare is the accepted tag". Certainly in the UK medical facilities are much more likely to be mapped using the amenity key. The various healthcare tagging schemas advocated on the wiki have never received much mainstream support from mappers, by far and away the most popular tag in the UK for medical or health centres is amenity=doctors. I would argue also that healthcare=centre is a poor choice of name for tags as there are many different medical facilities with centre in the description.

No, he's built a list of values which he finds useful. One of the main points of OSM is to allow the description of the unusual & idiosyncratic because a rigid list of approved values inevitably cannot cope. People enforcing a set of values devalues what OSM is about. For instance you have changed a number of bridge=footbridge which I have added over the past few months. It may be an inadequate tag to capture what I want to do, but it certainly has more meaning than bridge=yes. For a start it makes them much harder to find if I wanted to enhance the tagging. If unusual bridge values upset you I suggest you render your own map & stop tagging for OSM-Carto.

And it is only polite to comment changesets, particularly when you are tag fiddling.

So you are also the person silently removing my bridge=footbridge tags too. Can you at the very least ask about these before changing them.

On the contrary information has been lost: changing a tag to a note is always information loss. You are changing tagging for the renderer, a practice which has been discouraged for many years. Instead you should a) file an issue with the rendering github repository and b) improve the wiki documentation. There are NO APPROVED VALUES, only widely used tags. This particular bridge seems to be unusual and therefore has historic value.

I would not expect the object tagged with building to have any height information if tagged using S3DB, rather everything on building parts. I was looking at the data on a phone so only looked at the outline, and I must have read a comment on another changeset in the object history rather than this one or I would have looked more closely. So in practice my objections are very minor: a) separate building part for the lower section; and b) would be nice to have building:levels for other building parts (but I imagine this is far too much work).

The alterations made in this change set a) removed useful & important information ( that a building has 41 storeys) and b) replaced the height with a clearly erroneous value. I hope that these changes "to the new tagging scheme" were an accidental one-off. The continued use of Manhattan buildings in visualisations suggests that this is the case. I'd be grateful if you could review any similar edits which may have caused similar discrepancies.

If the information is accurate then it is not 'tagging for the router', merely making access permissions explicit. Routers which implicitly route on service roads may cause other problems.

The person who did Great Britain didn't ask either. Somehow we'd managed fine without it for something like 8-9 years.

කලින් පණිවිඩවල ගූගල් භාවිතයෙන් ස්වයංක්රීය පරිවර්තනය:

ආදරණීය වේෂේෂ්කුමාර්,

OpenStreetMap ඔබගේ එකතු කිරීම් ගැටළු ගණනාවක් ඇති කරයි. විශේෂයෙන් ඔබ වර්ග කිලෝමීටර් දහස් ගනනක් ප්රදේශයක් සහිත ගොඩනැගිලි එකතු කරන බව පෙනේ. මෙම ගැටලුවේ මූලික හේතුව කුමක් විය හැකිද යන්න හඳුනා ගැනීමට කරුණාකර ජොඑස්එම් සමඟ සංස්කරණය කිරීම නවත්වන්න.

SK53

OpenStreetMap වෙත ඔබගේ සියලු එකතු කිරීම් ඉවත් කිරීමට මට සිදු වී ඇති අතර, බොහෝ දායකයින්ගේ දායකත්වය සහ වැඩ ප්රමානය බරපතල ලෙස බලපා ඇත.

එසේ වුවද, ඔබගේ දායකත්වය සාදරයෙන් පිළිගනිමු. ඊළඟ වතාවේ වෙනත් සංස්කාරකයක් භාවිතා කරන්න මම යෝජනා කරනවා.

@bgirardot2: not every contributor has the time to assess the full aspects of contributions which are interfering with their use of OSM. They may be in the middle of a complex series of changes or trying to achieve something quickly. It has taken me around 90 minutes to get to grips with this: not everyone can afford that time. Yes we should avoid the vandalism word, but I think calling people out for doing so rarely helps too.

I'm afraid I have had to remove all your additions to OpenStreetMap as they were seriously affecting the contributions and workload of many other contributors.

Notwithstanding this, your contributions are welcome. I would suggest using a different editor next time.