Of course, some "mistakes" were fixed - way/22992055/history .

Clearly node/3596038495 is just spam.

Reverted in changeset/32050739 . I'm pretty sure the stuff north of Adams Road was still there a couple of months back when I was last there (I'd have noticed if there was a major change - I noticed the building site to the south).

I'd definitely upload any GPS traces to OSM so that they appear to future editors. I suspect there's a point somewhere between "this is a nice gravel track" and "I can _just_ about get through here on a bike" where we stop adding as paths to OSM - I suspect that different mappers do that at different points :)

All the GPX traces uploaded to OSM, visible in the editors that support it (i.e. everything but iD, which only shows public ones). There's clearly a discrepancy between Bing and the underlying GPS traces and OSSV (which mostly agree, as far as you can tell with OSSV). Even the Strava data shows a small offset from Bing though.

What's the source of way/340907861/history ? There seems to be no underlying Strava data there.

What was the duplicate way that was removed here? It looks like you're editing an area where someone's copied a bunch of stuff from Strava (which may or may not still exist). What remains still looks fairly unfeasible. Also, did you take into account the underlying Bing offset here?

It looks like you've not accounted for the Bing imagery offset when moving nodes here. way/331916580 is now offset with respect to the GPS traces visible on osm.org. For example, look at the change on node/291120993/history and the fact that it is now offset from the underlying GPS traces.

DanCulli - I don't think that you can change a changeset description after the changeset is closed, but (like you just have!) you can add to the discussion saying what it was, so I wouldn't worry about it.
However, you might want to review the placement of the service road to the south - it looks like it was aligned based on a GPS trace that was slightly out (Bing imagery is sometimes misplaced, but looks OK here when compared to the sum of other GPS traces).

I bumped into this when adding benches in Regents Park. Reverted in changeset/31985404

Hello andyb109,

Over the last few months I've asked you (as a local GB mapper) about a number of questionable edits in England and Wales. I have never had a reply to any of these changeset discussions from you.

I've also sent you messages on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group - see osm.org/user_blocks/606 and osm.org/user_blocks/638 .

However some of the "peaks" that you're adding still seem to be very problematical. Here, for example, the current OSM mapping suggests a quarry, and the imagery bears that out - you seem to have added a peak at the bottom of a very deep quarry.

Can you explain why this addition is in fact valid?

It's important that, as a community, OpenStreetMap mappers work together. This means that we need to communicate with each other and reply to each others messages. As I said before, if you don't abide by these rules you will be stopped from editing OpenStreetMap again.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.

Oops - I think that something went wrong with the tea shop node/3530953216/history - its latitude and longitude both got set to "37.3986898" so it ended up in Turkey, rather than Japan. You might want to recheck where you intended to put it :)

Hi, rather than adding "example" data to OSM you might find it helpful to use the "dev" server http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ . It's a separate login, but once you're in the editing process is exactly the same as the normal server, apart from tile rendering.

Following a request on IRC I've reverted the deletions and added the company office back in changeset/31929561

way/352315589 , way/55317834 , and way/351374184

What are the access rights on it? From memory, there's a north-south public footpath (which doesn't currently have a "designation" tagged in OSM) and a private east-west route that is permissive for foot and cycle traffic. Is what you've added really access=private, or is there a sign indicating permissive or some other sort of access?

@Cradamy Looks like new build to me (if you look at the "OS Locator" imagery you can see "Nightingale Avenue" and "Robin Road", and also a "Cuckoo Gate" further to the north). Obviously it's tricky to guess where new roads are / are going to be - but having a new name in in slightly the wrong place is definitely better than not having it in at all.

I certainly found it tricky getting the hang of joining things to other things when I first started adding stuff to OSM, and its more difficult now when there's more stuff already mapped (like in this case separate footpaths).

@A&A Cars thanks for the update and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

There's an interesting VMD vs OSSV discrepancy at node/759644115 . The OSSV version of Dover Beck seems to fit with GPS traces (and pretty closely to Bing) further up towards Oxton; I wonder why VMD seems to be 2-3m out?

Has Boots really gone from the Wyvern (way/162655902/history)? If not, what has replaced it?

Hi - I'm guessing you meant "leaf_type=broadleaved" not "leaf_type broad_leaved" on way/345895603 et al as per leaf%20type=*?uselang=en-GB

I've just tidied up a load of mine in Clipstone...

Hello! Just for info, I think that you've misspelt the key "leaf_type" on node/3561314018 . It's confusing, because the tag has a hyphen in it but the value ("broadleaved") does not: leaf=* type