Is the lack of alignment at way/365134959#map=19/4.45603/10.52479 deliberate? It looks similar to my kitchen floor after the cowboy builders have been at it. Also, what does "yes" mean as a changeset comment?

Hi - just wondered if the defibrillator here was in the right place? Perhaps it needs nudging a bit northeast so that it's in the station itself rather than between the station and one of the rail lines?

In case you're wondering why it doesn't appear on the "standard" map, there's a bit of info about that here:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1603

Personally, I'd use http://waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=12&lat=50.26969&lon=-4.78722&hill=0# for that...

Thanks. For completeness, the popularity of various designation keys in the UK is http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/designation#values . Obviously Staffs' website can't be used as a source for OSM (there's a big disclaimer at the bottom) but following confirmation by resurvey, if does sound like a http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic

You seem to have removed the "boundary" tag here (see e.g. http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=58446 ). Was that perhaps by mistake?

You've changed Gent to "name=Ghent" here - I'm guessing that that was by mistake?

Hi - just for info the gyratory system here is being discussed on talk-gb https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-August/017663.html

Hi - thanks for the reply. Re http://www.hills-database.co.uk/index.html , there may be an issue with the licence. http://www.hills-database.co.uk/downloads.html says "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License". https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2015-April/010552.html says "CC BY (and BY-SA) 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 require a form of
attribution that is not practical for most map uses, so we need
permission.". If you are unable to obtain explicit permission to import into OSM then I'd definitely suggest asking the wider community so that someone with experience of licence issues can reply. Haroldstreet.org.uk appears to be down at the moment but Google's cache http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.haroldstreet.org.uk/ shows a big copyright notice at the bottom. Again I'd suggest getting explicit permission to import into OSM and asking the wider OSM community about it.

Hi - thanks for the reply. If you're doing an import, then you need to follow the rules set down on the links from this page: osm.wiki/Import . In particular you'll need to clarify _which_ Creative Commons licence the data is available under - a number of those are _not_ compatible with OpenStreetMap. See also osm.wiki/Legal_FAQ#2b._XYZ_Organisation_has_data_for_free_download_under_licence_N._Can_I_use_it_in_OSM.3F . As you're adding lots of hills, I'd also suggest (out of common courtesy) that you mention what you're doing on the talk-gb mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb .

Thanks - that looks much more like the right size.

Hi - you've added node/3629372750 here, but it could do with a main tag so that renderers and anyone else looking at the data could know what it is - maybe "office=solicitors" or both "office=lawyer" and "lawyer=solicitor" would work?

Hi, just for info - fixing the self-intersection in way/342358236 left a small gap in the Rutland Round relation/1438826 - I've fixed it.

Aha! So it is!

Please don't "doodle" on the map - OpenStreetMap is a shared resource; it's supposed to represent what's on the ground only.

changeset/24413493 was a "test" of yours in London, changeset/30893803 contained a doodle, changeset/30893852 dragged one end of a street away from its correct location and changeset/30893855 moved a supermarket. You're welcome to edit OpenStreetMap with valid edits, but not if the things that you're changing don't exist.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.

What are the "P30 TumP, HumP and Clem hill lists" and what is the licence associated with that information?

Note that "Bwrdd Arthur" is already mapped as an archaeological site at way/145859564 . The OS 7th series imagery which you claimed to be using shows it as a hill fort, not a named hill, as does the NLS 1:25k map that your browser says that you were actually using.

What's the licence information associated with the "Database of British and Irish Hills" (and where is it) and also "Haroldstreet.org" (which does not resolve for me currently)?

Hi - just noticed that you changed maxage to max_age on node/3289150010/history (a water tower). Just wondered what "max_age" actually means on a water tower? Is it really only usable by children?

Hi - just wondered what the status of way/17504893/history was? Currently the tags look a bit confusing. Previously it was mapped as an unpaved service road (which is what it looks like on the imagery, given that it appears to be access to the farm). It's now a "highway=bridleway" (which would imply it's not really wide enough for 4-wheel traffic), "designation=public_footpath" (which would imply there's a legal foot right of way over it but not necessarily anything else) and "access=" and "motor_vehicle=permissive" (which would suggest that the owner allows motor traffic on it.

If it's signed as a "public bridleway" I'd expect that "designation=public_bridleway" would make sense (with at least "foot=yes" and "horse=yes") and I'd expect the "highway" tag to reflect the physical status of the way - perhaps highway=service or highway=track if it's wide enough for 4-wheeled traffic.

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this area southwest of Oakham (though I've walked a few bits around the other side), so I can't suggest anything based on having been there.

Anyway - hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to help.
Cheers,
Andy

What's the signage on way/63610593/history ? Currently it's "designation=open to all traffic" - that might mean that it's a "Byway Open to All Traffic" (BOAT), an Unclassified County Road (or however Staffs describe them), or something without a designation that other maps might mark as "Other route with public access".

I'd consider comparing with OS OpenData StreetView here too - as the note on the Via Gellia suggests, getting a GPS signal at the bottom of the valley among the trees is tricky, and Bing here can be misaligned due to the trees (though it's better than it was).