It's important to be aware that "facts can't be copyrighted" is basically a US legal position, not one which applies in the same way in the UK & Europe. UK allows protection of databases of facts created through "sweat of the brow", and databases are protected under EU law.

Notwithstanding this, Google's T&Cs expressly forbid using the data to create other maps. So even if facts cant be copyrighted you have to find a source of the facts which allows you access in such a way that you can copy them.

Peak shown by node/2462433296 doesn't look right. Can you remember whch imagery you used?

The English name of Tierra del Fuego is Tierra del Fuego: there is no translation like "Fire Ireland" in any regular usage.

Yes I trace from aerial imagery, but the road widths are conventional according to scale (so they'll tend to be wider than reality at smaller scales and too narrow at larger scales. Mapping all the details of pavements, road widths etc is still a step too far. Although in principle the widths of urban streets are easily added to the data and a more accurate rendering should be possible.

I'll add the details you mention & hope to have a look around just before our next Nottingham pub meeting as its not too far from the Lincolnshire Poacher (osm.wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup).

Many thanks for this correction. I think I originally surveyed it from a bus trip up Gordan Road and must have misjudged which crossroads it was at.

I've now added some buildings around the shop. Any other corrections or additions in this area would be very welcome, as its not that close to where any of us more active mappers live. Some of the mapping is also quite old (done 7-8 years ago)

It would have been nice before you made this change if you were aware of the considerable discussion over many years as to why the Great Lakes were mapped as coastline. See for example this discussion on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/3z7w9d/where_are_the_great_lakes/ and just one thread from talk-us https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-April/014776.html. I'm sure most would agree with the sentiment, but the edit has effectively removed them from small scale zoom levels of OSM. This would have been better done in conjunction with the Carto-CSS team so that tag changes & enhancements to the rendering chain were implemented together. And messages to mailing lists about such significant changes dont go amiss.

I think that Potlatch offers a box for "Official Classification" which gets translated into the designation tag. (I usually use the advanced mode so not absolutely sure).

It's a bit difficult to point to a satisfactory Best Practice document because all the very active footpath mappers in the UK tend to have various degrees of dissatisfaction with what is written on the wiki. So have a look at the Southern Peak District, almost anywhere in Hampshire, West Sussex, Amber Valley, and Shropshire which are local patches for very active footpath mappers (dudone, nickw, SomeoneElse and trigpoint). Or look at recent mapping round Consall Forge in Staffs as 3 of the above + myself & brianboru all did footpath mapping independently on the same day.

We should be having another footpath mapping event on a Saturday in late May. This will be at Scalford NE of Melton Mowbray which might be close enough if you wanted to meet & chat about mapping them. I think we always find there's stuff to learn from each other.

I notice that when adding footpaths you are adding foot=designated. You may not be aware but there is another, more useful, tag for identifying Public Rights of Way. This is designation with typical values of public_footpath, public_bridleway, byway and restricted_byway. If there's any chance of revisiting some you've mapped it would help identify those areas which have been well mapped for PRoWs.

Yes more detailed comments would be appreciated. We only realised 2 days ago that the Western Isles are a complete mess: there are likely to be coastline & boundary problems as we work to get islands to actually fit in the boundary. For reference when I started working on this again this morning JOSM was reporting a considerable number of coastline errors which it was not reporting last night. Also OSM Inspector shows several areas where there are two sets of coastlines: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=coastline&lon=-7.28798&lat=57.13385&zoom=12&overlays=coastline,coastline_error_lines,line_not_a_ring,line_overlap,line_invalid,line_direction,questionable,coastline_error_points,unconnected,intersections,not_a_ring,double_node,tagged_node.

I will be adding another changeset which *may* resolve some of these, but trying to fix ad hoc problems shown by OSM Inspector is likely to be counter productive as most coastline ways in this area will need to be progressively replaced by better geometries.

Using Google Maps is not permissible for adding data to OpenStreetMap. I note that many of your boundary changes elsewhere in the world have been erroneous. I would be very surprised if you have expertise on the minutae of the boundaries of San Francisco, New Territories & the City of London as they are so far apart. Furthermore as these are large populated places with many OpenStreetMap contributors I would also be surprised that the boundaries existing before your changes were accurate (as is certainly the case for the City of London).

As you note Google as a source I must revert this edit.

I'd suggest contacting the US Chapter of OSM direct. I'm aware of some sophisticated mapping for disabled access in various University campuses in the US: it's quite likely that at least one of these has been reported at a conference.

Otherwise checkout the German wheelmap site (http://wheelmap.org/en/map). The founder himself is wheelchair bound, and they are probably the most extensive provider of such access tags to OSM.

Mapping access indoors is still in its relative infancy on OSM. There is one excellent visualisation tool OpenLevelUp: http://openlevelup.net/.

In general it best to start quite simply: map entrances with straightforward wheelchair tags (the associated description tag is essential as it can provide the specific info for each place). Using an elevator=yes tag is an example of this too: it provides usable info, but without having to micromap the building.

444 N Wabash was already present as a building (sourced from Chicago Open Data). There are now two buildings at this location (with different numbers of levels too, 5 & 6).

The use of highway=elevator with a building tag also looks odd (the render assumes the whole area is dedicated to an elevator). A more usual way of indicating that something has a given property, but that property if not explictly mapped, is to add property=yes. So I'd suggest changing the highway=elevator tag to elevator=yes (around 1000 uses mostly with building or building:part http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/elevator), or explictly mapping the positions of the elevators. Note that the former has also been used with wheelchair accessibility tags.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but using Google imagery & other resource to contribute to OpenStreetMap is not allowed. Firstly it contravenes Google's terms of service. Secondly, it probably uses imagery from Google's suppliers in ways that are not allowed by the agreement that Google has with its suppliers. Thirdly, and most importantly from our perspective, it violates the contributor agreement which you agreed to when you signed up with OpenStreetMap. OpenStreetMap respects others copyrights for the simple reason that we want people to respect our copyright.

Any edits where you have used Google imagery are liable to be deleted in their entirety. In the meantime please confine your edits to those imagery layers which are allowed for contributing to OSM (notably Mapbox & Bing).

Yes I understand why it was reverted: I was just particularly interested in seeing a pub mapped this way, and then realising that we have (at least) 2 different approaches in the UK.

Personally this is a talk-gb issue. By all means pass it on to tagging, but I don't place great faith on their judgement.

I suggest we move this conversation to talk-gb. There are interesting aspects of how we tag areas associated with various POIS: and obviously at least two different approaches.

No, this is a genuine difference in how people choose to map pubs, not "mapping for the renderer".

I can see the advantages of mapping the whole area : relationships are easily determined, but it has never been obvious to me (or many other mappers) that a pub car park is a pub. If I thought this was an important issue I'd suggest mapping the area as landuse=retail, with retail=pub & keep the pub tag (which is largely a pure POI not landuse based, unlike schools) for the building.

Yes but I find mapping the whole site including the car park as the pub counterintuitive (let alone the non-optimal rendering position of the icon).

I think the usual way is to have a way for the pub restricted to buildings, with ancillary areas: beer gardens, parking etc mapped separately. This does mean that the precise relationship between the car park & pub might be lost (I've even come across associatedParking relations to deal with this).

As a non-Indonesian I do not know what hospital:type=C might mean. I would suggest using a longer string so that it is easier to relate to hospitals elsewhere.

I've just added the Architectural Association on the W side of Bedford Square. It would be nice to grab the other house numbers next time you're in the area. Also I think there are a few Blue Plaques (e.g., https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Plaque,_13_Bedford_Square_-_geograph.org.uk_-_602909.jpg)

Great to see your first edit! Details like this need locals to keep things up to date, although mapping closed pubs is a regrettably common occurrence.

You can also add an area on the open land formerly occupied by the pub and add the tag landuse=brownfield.