You've added the Bury, Manchester & Bolton Canal in this changeset. However, I believe most of this no longer exists on the ground. For instance the section running through the N part of Moses Gate Country Park (i.e., N of Hall Lane) is now just a track. I think other bits of the canal may best be tagged waterway=disused_canal.

Us means the OSM Nottingham community. We have consistently found that changes made by non-local mappers often do not make data better, and frequently make it worse. Even if one local usage is not typical of that in Germany, it is usually highly consistent in the local area and as such useful to local mappers and people, particularly via the OSM-Nottingham website. Changing tagging often has the same immediate effect as deleting the data.

On the contrary a note will usually be examined quickly, and if helpful, for instance suggesting use of a more widely used tagging scheme, is likely to be followed up. Such an approach also gives a chance to include such changes by local data consumers.

Yes, I did mean it! OSM has free format tagging. I needed to do quite a lot of work on this to replace erroneous edits by someone.

Nope what we'd like you to do is please add a note dont make the edit. That way we can review the tags ourselves & check notes/photos etc. Changing tagging without knowing what is there can change the meaning from what was intended.

I would much rather you added a note. First, local mappers can check the tagging: in this case I have a photo & the island has dropped kerbs on either side, so it can be regarded as a crossing. However, it is not a traffic_calming=cushion, which I noted in reviewing my photos. BUT, there is a second one about 50 m away which is! Second, it gives people a chance to catch up on changes/developments in tagging. 'fixing' the tagging does neither of these things. Thirdly, a change takes no account of the fact that the island might not be there for crossing purposes (we have one road with many which are there as a traffic calming measure).

I will edit these as I would have done anyway in checking my photos, but a note might have helped me or someone else to check before.

Just to confirm, this is an old admin unit which ceased to exist in 1866, although a civil parish with roughly the same name continued to exist through to 1930. See wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_Hill,_Hatton_Garden,_Ely_Rents_and_Ely_Place and Vision of Britain: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10183789/boundary. OS are quite good at adding new stuff, but not so hot on removing no longer valid old stuff. The historical admin geography of Britain is way too complex to try & handle in OSM.

The node you changed from highway=island to highway=crossing in Sneinton. I was reviewing old photographs & then noticed the change: which incidentally makes it obvious that you have not seen the said location.

I wonder if you visited this location & checked whether it is actually a crossing, or just an island in the highway. You have changed the meaning of the tagging in this case.

Changeset comments for this type of edit always appreciated.

Seems unlikely that you meant bare_rock for way/387806282!

Well can't remember them, but marked as such on OSSV (together with pumping station), so probably noted it was a 'water board' site.

No! Looks very odd: accidental reuse of tags from another way?

Point of reference is garden centre where stopped for a coffee.

Yup, so would I: marking it as still construction might help getting the it finished.

It's closing down imminently, but I eventually realised that the Geograph picture shows it at the end of the building with the garden centre bit beyond. That gave me a chance by looking at the places I'd previously mapped as landuse=retail. I must say I'd hoped the detective work would have been easier.

Yes I know its called Aztec West, I have worked there over the years, but unless it's changed a lot it is not a residential area. Lots of industrial/business areas have churches: I can think of over 10 in Nottingham, but it doesnt make them villages.

Aztec West is not a village in any usual sense of the word. I think it would be better just to name the area of the Aztec West business park.

Hi, I'm just adding some more residential roads in Katsina city, and looking at Bing this one seems unpaved way/363735160, but you tagged it as paved. Before changing the tag I wanted to check to see if you have more up-to-date information.

Thanks,

SK53

I would back chillly up here: when there is no street name some local authorities maintaining NaPTAN data seem to feel that this field must be filled even when there is no corresponding actual name. In these cases the relevant tag to use is description. If a NaPTAN name does not correspond to one in OSGB Locator then it is advisable to be careful (see OSL Musical Chairs for this data). ALWAYS use two (independent) sources for this kind of edit.

Never replace tagged information with a note. At the very least add a description= or note= tag. But in practice the only really acceptable edit is to change the perfectly understandable prior value with the relevant conditional tags. Relatively few users (myself included) know the syntax of these, let alone that they exist.

Thinking about it, I suspect that NG2 1AA is a postcode associated originally with the Pennyfoot St location (or possibly even Station Street), which has been parked at the delivery office instead of being reused.