@trigpoint has drawn my attention to this. If the buildings still exist I would advocate mapping them as polygons, tagged building=pub (provided this was what they were built for). On a general basis I'd agree with trigpoint, but I see no harm in adding a limited amount of historical info providing it does not interfere with mapping of what's there currently. Once you reach that point then OHM may be more useful (although then you need to research the dates pubs were active). You may be interested in the old pub layers on Evesham Mapped (http://www.evesham-mapped.org.uk/map/?z=12&lon=-1.95361&lat=52.07253&bgl=OSM,1,16&l=closedpubs) and OSM-Nottingham (http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=11&lon=-1.17732&lat=52.96221&bgl=OSM,1,18&l=closedpubs). Ultimately if mapping of this type of object becomes more widespread then we probably do need to use an alternative platform.

Did you not note the pub in Waltham when you did this survey

Must say when I lived in South London I never heard this name (and its sufficiently quirky that if I had I'd have remembered very distinctly). I would have called all of this area Streatham Vale.

The RMSM may not be a barracks, but it is certainly not a school as the tag is generally used on OSM: i.e., a place for education of 3-18 year olds. I have changed this back to landuse=military & added mlitary=training_establishment

This was mapped way before Bing imagery was available. Things may have changed of course, but as usual the best answer is a ground survey.

These dont exist anymore, are not visible and certainly havent been for at least 20 years (probably nearer 75+). They should not be mapped on OSM. By all means add the historical London Tram Network to OHM, but not to OSM.

Yes easy enough as it was a photo survey: clothes & shoes.

I hope that before you did this edit that you checked with the original creators of the nodes tagged with building=entrance, notably David Earl. Many of these refer to buildings in Cambridge University, and such tagging may be needed by the in-house university map. It would be a real shame if in tidying up tags you broke an application used by thousands of people.

Such edits have been reverted by DWG in the past.

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.