Was there any discussion of this change nefore it was made, so that anyone who was still rendering "aed" on maps had a chance to change? I can understand the logic behind the change ("defibrillator" is easy to understand; "aed" is not) but a public "hey, I'm going to change this" message would be really helpful so that emergency information does not disappear from people's maps.

Does way/235295038 really go straight through a fence here? It seems unlikely.

I'm gradually surveying Clipstone and breaking up the large "forest" area into smaller "natural=wood" areas with details of tree types (leaf_type and usually a note). When more of the old forest area has been done I'll re-add landuse=forest around the whole of it and move the name labels to that, so that the smaller "natural=wood" areas contain details of the trees, and the "landuse=forest" contains details of the landuse.

Thanks

One "non-problematic" change might be something like "Coffee_shop" to "coffee_shop" - it's clear what was meant, and you're just correcting a typing error.

Another might be where you've been to the place (or you have other licence-compatible information - maybe a friend has been) and you know that cuisine=coffee_shop fits.

A "problematic" change is one where you don't actually know that a change is valid, like the "restaurant" with cuisine=coffee.

With any wider series of changes it's always worth discussing beforehand so that people can add their real-world experience of what things are actually like.

Misspellings aside, it's fairly clear that not all objects in this changeset have been manually checked. For example, way/281593798 is clearly missing a building tag; something that would have been obvious had each item been checked properly.

More contentious is the change of "cuisine=coffee" to "cuisine=coffee_shop". In the case of well-known chain shops (e.g. Tim Horton's, Starbucks) you could make the case that they're all much of a muchness and therefore consistent "coffee_shop" tagging might make sense (though even in the wiki it notes that some Tim Horton's are exceptions to the "standard Tim Horton's" - which points out the perils of such assumptions). That change is something that should have been discussed beforehand - are you willing to make a case for the change via the method that you should have followed before making it? At the very least telling people that you've made the change will communicate to data users that the change has been made - something that they will currently only now discover as the data disappears from their maps.

Additionally in some cases it is absolutely not possible to assume from the OSM tagging that what you are dealing with is a stereotypical definition of a "coffee shop" - node/2692607521/history is an example. It _might_ be a coffee shop mistagged as a restaurant, or it _might_ be a restaurant in which all the dishes contain coffee.

As well as retrospectively making the change for this mechanical edit (and having that accepted) are you also willing to undo problematical changes such as the "coffee restaurant" (and any others that might be similar; perhaps with different tags)? If not, then this changeset will have to be reverted.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of the OSM Data Working Group.

For completeness see also note/152813

For info I was there last night; but the footpath west across the golf course (not along the old track) still needs mapping. There are also a bunch of designations for public footpaths that need adding; I'll do that shortly. Also there's actually some confusion as to how long one of the bridleways is (one end signed; the other not).

How does the "motorboat" tag differ from the "boat" tag in usage? Are the two exactly synonymous, or is there some difference in usage that isn't obvious from the wiki pages?

You've deleted the man_made=survey_point tag from node/1308949083/history and changed the name in this changeset. Have you actually verified on the ground that there is no longer a trig point here? Also, "Starvehouse Mine" is an unusual name. What is the source of it?

Unfortunately someone has edited the wiki page to make it no longer describe how mappers have been using highway=footway for many years. I've added a comment to the user talk page
osm.wiki/User_talk:Geow .
The problem with "highway=path" is that it simply doesn't say anything about the physical attibutes of the footpath in question, whereas footway does - it makes it clear that it's designed for feet rather than for anything else. You can of course add other tags such as surface, width, tracktype, smoothness, sac_scale, and you'd need to do at least some of these to avoid losing the information that "this is a footpath".

Away from the physical description, I'd also ensure that the legal definition is correct - so "foot=yes" if applicable (and it will be for the ones in this list across access land) and "designation=public_footpath" if that is also the case (in some cases that's already set).

Is it actually meaningful to tag an ASL on a way like way/204790848 ?

Hello - I think something went a bit wrong with a few things here - way/346025005/history looked implausible for a path or road (and there were a couple of others in the other changesets).

way/190037257 had also gone a bit wrong - it seemed to double back on itself.

If you're trying to record "personal routes" OpenStreetMap isn't really the place for it (thoough lots of places that use OSM data) might be. If you want to create a "personal map" perhaps something like http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ might be what you were looking for?

I've undone the problematical changes in changeset/31284880 .

Hi - is way/20644307 definitely both access=destination and highway=unclassified ? It's a pretty unusual combination - presumably it's signed as something like access only at both ends?

Changing mapxspeed values from mph values to their km/h equivalents seems very much like a mechanical edit. Was it discussed anywhere so that local mappers who consume the data would actually know that the change was occurring?

Was way/130807506/history actually a "typo in highway"? Is there any support for "removed:highway=footway" compared to "former_highway=former_footway"?

I certainly did process some "former" tags (although not actually this one) so it'd be nice to know in advance that changes like this were going to happen.

"highway=footway" doesn't imply an "urban" footpath, simply one that is suited to walking on but not other means of transport. "highway=path" doesn't say anything about what sort of path it is or what sort of traffic it is suitable for thought "foot=designated" does say that foot traffic is encouraged (e.g. by signage) to use it as opposed to some other route.

Please don't replace highway=footway with highway=path - you're removing useful information from the map. See osm.wiki/Duck_tagging for a more in-depth discussion on this.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

way/342070897 is clearly a building of some sort, but what? If it's some garages, than building=garages might apply, or even just "building=yes".

Does node/3079332842/history really have the name "tree" as well as being a tree? If it doesn't have an actual name, there's no need to create one for OpenStreetMap - the tag "natural=tree" describes that it is a tree.

Oh - and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

It was a while since I was there, but I don't remember the Centralbron ever having a name in English...