I tend to agree with @fkv on all issues: 1) large scale updates often have unpredictable side effects; 2) originally we distinguished between conifers/dicots aka broad-leaved and palms (and possibly one or two others) using a range of tags wood/type etc. Ultimately these have been replaced by leaf_type. However, the palm issue (and also Gingko) highlight that leaf_type=broadleaved doesn't quite do what I think most of us expected. As @fkv nicely shows modern systematics doesn't help either. Whereas I would expect ordinary mappers to not know that Gingkos are gymnosperms; I think most should be able to distinguish palms.

To summarise: the tagging issues involved are rather more complex that initially apparent. Reversion at least would retain mapped information. Further discussion is needed on general values for leaf_type before such wholesale changes are introduced automatically.

As a fellow mapper of trees I wondered if you know of the species or taxon tags. These are more appropriate for tree types than name (especially when the tree also has a proper name). Here are some examples on one's I've done osm.org/#map=19/52.94379/-1.19020&layers=N, and an example of a named tree node/430767743. Either way keep up the good work.

EoghanM: I dont think the usage in Cambridge is drastically different from usage elsewhere. For Nottingham University there are 3 major amenity=university campuses, but also a number of discrete buildings or part of buildings (notably the Medical School & Postgraduate Medical Centre located within NHS Hospital campuses). One of these campuses, Kings Meadow, is purely an administrative site. Nottingham has additional campuses: one 10 miles away (Sutton Bonington), the other two about 6000 miles away, and the latter two are branded University of Nottingham but are actually joint venture enterprises. So a single relation isn't going to work here even to just cover the 6 campuses. The buildings not in or conveniently close enough to be mapped as exclaves of a campus are treated in ways analogous to the Cambridge situation, but buildings within campuses are not so treated; but then Cambridge doesn't really have true campuses.

I would suggest changing the tagging to break a widely used application which can be cited as an example of OSM's real-world utility is not a good idea. Particularly as the University of Cambridge spend good money in developing that app, this would primarily send a message that we care not a fig for people who use the data.

Yes I agree with will_p & SomeoneElse: the solution is to get a fix in Nominatim not mung the data. The existing places have been pretty stable for quite a number of years. Tweaking things in this way may well break other things, such as Garmin Maps based on OSM which many people (SomeoneElse & I, for instance) use all the time.

Hmm, when I visited I needed a permit from SNH or its predecessor (mind you the only way off the ferry was by dinghy). The island is effectively still a private estate (whether in hands of Bulloughs, NCC, SNH or a Community Trust) and should be mapped in a manner consistent with similar estates on the mainland.

See this statement on the IRCT website (http://www.isleofrum.com/contactandlinks.php) which clearly states that the road is private:

Q. Can I take my car to Rum?
A. No. The roads in Kinloch Village are privately owned and managed by the local community. In line with the other Small Isles, visitors to Rum are not permitted to bring vehicles except under exceptional circumstances. People generally leave their cars parked at Mallaig or Arisaig while they visit Rum.

I've changed the road to service as I don't believe it is maintained by local authority. As you have been there more recently than me you may know better, in which case revert my edit.

Is the White House flagpole really called William Estate? I can find no online references to this name.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. You may be interested to know that the tags which you have added as a single point (node) could equally be added to the existing area marked as landuse=industrial. In this case the name would show up directly. The address information & name you have added is very useful anyway (& will be searchable too), but will not show directly on the map.

A couple of other tags might be of interest too: industrial=scrapyard, amenity=recycling and recycling:scrap_metal=yes. These help separate different kinds of industrial areas.

I wonder if you discussed this import before carrying it out. It appears to have lots of duplicate nodes and areas labelled as forest which are clearly small groups of individual trees.

You never added the name! (done now)

It would be better if both of you respected the judgement of two very experienced OSM bicycle mappers who both regard this as route=mtb. See the mail by Richard Fairhurst to talk-us about this https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2016-May/016206.html, and the comment by Simon Poole on OSM Help.

Both names seem to be old names of the former CP of Wanstead. I seriously doubt if they have any relevance now http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol6/pp317-322

Sorry wrote that w/o seeing that you are a new user. So a belated welcome.

There are a lot of OSM contributors spending a lot of time doing really detailed mapping of public rights of way (PRoW). Here's something I wrote up about this a couple of years ago which might be of interest http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/10-years-of-footpath-mapping-for.html.

Suggest it might be worth adding designation=public_footpath tags to anything which is signed as a public_footpath. It really helps a) reconcile against official data (if available); and b) makes clear which paths one has clear right to use.

You deleted way/169640838/history in this changeset, but there are isolated stiles appearing around Round Wood. I know some paths mapped in this area suffered from inaccurate GPS traces, but I'd like to know why an apparently surveyed path got zapped.

Yes please use something like umap. Unless the local planning application summary (reference & address) are explicitly provided by the council as open data they are not suitably licensed for OpenStreetMap. Even if they are such relatively ephemeral (and hard to check) data is something which we tend to avoid including in OSM. Another point is that as I dont believe Peckham is address complete there is a danger that non-open sources might be used to add data. FInally we dont use ALL CAPS in names, we dont include comments or the address in names either, there are perfectly sensible tags for these. By adding all this extra stuff it becomes much harder for people who want to use the data (for instance finding a Costa on Peckham High St) if there is lots of extraneous info in the name.

Must say I'd really appreciate a description with each of these changesets. It's much easier for other mappers to view the changeset description than to have to look at the objects edited & try to find what has changed.

Can I just also add my request that such changes be at least passed by local mappers. The Grantham canal is a disused canal with a wide variety of different status throughout its length. It is non-trivial to map even with a survey. In this case one of the most active mappers in the world (kevjs1982) lives no more than a kilometre away. He mapped a lot of detail along the canal when the A46 road was widened. There have been no significant changes to the area since then.

I must say it concerns me that MapBox user feedback might be treated more seriously than diligent active local mappers.

Don't worry too much about this: everyone copies the old changeset comments from time to time (or accidentally changes the c/s comments w/o saving each piece of work). It's certainly useful to do what you have done to clarify comments, but not essential.

I'm sure this track is shown on Ordnance Survey maps and plans. OpenStreetMap is no different we try & show what is observable. We do not censor the data except in cases where we may required to do so by laws (e.g., military areas). So I and others DO NOT accept your statement that it "should not be shown on maps"

No doubt this driveway is obvious both on aerial imagery and when passing on the public road. The likelihood is that someone will add it back at some stage.

What we do recommend in these circumstances is to add access=private which should be obeyed by routers and shows up on the OSM website with pale red dashes.