If any of these paths are part of the Bradford Millennium Way relation/1573819 , I'd definitely add them to the relation.

As part of this changeset some data was uploaded to around latitude 0, longitude 0. I've deleted it.

As part of this changeset some data was uploaded to around latitude 0, longitude 0. I've deleted it.

As part of this changeset some data was uploaded to around latitude 0, longitude 0. I've deleted it.

As part of this changeset some data was uploaded to around latitude 0, longitude 0. I've deleted it.

@chillly - done in changeset/31643834 . I've moved the village back towards the main road (which was a valid change in this changeset). Whilst it's possible that some of the farm names here might also have been valid, some were definitely duplicates and many were likely not valid any more, based on my relatively recent survey of Reedness next door. It's likely that many other bogus isolated_dwellings, localities and duplicate farms still exist in Lincolnshire. I try and correct stuff as I survey it but unfortunately copying names from OSSV can be done farm more quickly than they can be verified on the ground.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! What exactly is "Wheaten House" here? Is it a private building, or some sort of amenity (hotel or similar)?

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I think that something has gone a bit wrong with way/342284323 - it doesn't join at either end or in the middle, so routers won't be able to send any traffic up it.

I've tidied up the roundabout at osm.org/#map=19/53.48931/-1.14513 so that it no longer has roads doubling back on themselves. I've added a note at note/372653 to clarify the problems at that end, and will add a couple of others about "non-joining footpaths".

If there isn't a defined path, don't make one up for OSM and certainly don't make up a name for it. I'm familiar with Kinder and am very used to how the "available routes" change as the rainfall (and previous season's footfall) changes. The whole area's access land so any route across Kinder is "foot=yes" in OSM terms.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I notice that you've added way/350322632 on Kinder - what exactly is it? Without any tags consumers of the map data won't know what to do with it.

I doubt that way/344531944 really has a _name_ of "undefined" does it?

For info I walked along part of the Caldon Canal near way/92121317 - and there was definitely a boat on it!

Personally, I wouldn't add tags such as this without a local survey - there's too much guesswork involved. For example, I think that most of the T&M is navigable, but certainly at the eastern end it's not navigable all the time (it depends on what the Trent's doing), and I don't know that all of the flood defences are navigable currently.

Re the Caldon Canal, I'm not sure what the state of way/24857793/history#map=15/53.0897/-2.0361 and the tunnel to the south are currently. It's not derelict, but neither are some stretches of the the Cromford canal that are definitely motorboat=no. If you add tags such as boat=yes or motorboat=yes when you haven't surveyed you're devaluing the work of all of the people who do actually survey things, making the tags meaningless.

Thanks - that's useful information to have against the changeset.

Are there really two trig points together at node/3371439436/history and node/1268963343/history ? Last time I was there there was only one.

Why did you remove a tag from way/93814828/history ? Did you discuss it with the previous mapper and did the tag no longer apply?

It could be argued that the automated edits process is "needfFULLY tiresome and bureaucratic" because people add payment types to car parks, disused cafes and bus stops otherwise :)

Whether a statement on Tesco's website can be taken as gospel is an interesting question (someone on IRC last night reckoned that they've struggled to use Amex in some Tescos). I can certainly imagine other examples of "head office says X, local shop manager does Y.

I'd also completely agree that OSM mailing lists are the worst form of communication within OSM - except of course for all the others!

It wasn't an entirely wasteful process though - some duplicate nodes in Tunbridge Wells got fixes as a result of it: changeset/31489680

I don't remember much discussion about them at all (I think that they got briefly mentioned on IRC in the last year - but that's probably it). As they were originally meant as "fixmes", and predated the availability of decent aerial imagery, I'd probably be tempted to use the aerial imagery to complete the partial way, or if that's not possible add a fixme tag to it to say that's it's incomplete. there are tools now that can help mappers identify fixmes, but nothing that can easily look for a "strange-looking untagged arrow". Similarly, where I've come across stuff like way/31433423 (there are quite a few around Nottingham) I normally try and align to the Bing imagery and tag as what it appears to be - either a hedge or a field boundary or whatever, and stick source=Bing on it.

They were common in 2007 and 2008 or so; the idea was to indicate (via an untagged way) that something like a track or fence continued in a particular direction. What most people use now is either add a fixme tag or, since Bing imagery is available for most of this area now but wasn't then, just continue the ways based on the imagery.The one that I linked to will have been drawn by eye from the track, so a bit of "nudging towards the imagery" might make sense too (assuming it's not obviously offset).