Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I think that some nodes might have got dragged by accident here - if you look at osm.org/#map=18/52.07066/-3.80664 you can see that the forest track seems to zig-zag back on itself as it joins the public footpath. Presumably it doesn't do that in real life?

Cheers,

Andy

I'd discuss questions like this on talk-us, I think. There was also a lengthy thread on tagging: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-May/thread.html#17528 .

For info, I've joined the gap in the A45 in changeset/33861448 .

On the background layer in P2. There are lots of traces on the A6191, but even where there are fewer elsewhere they're all to one side of Bing.

Incidentally, this isn't the only place where there seems to be an offset between Strava's heatmap and OSM's traces - osm.org/#map=15/53.1537/-1.2946 is another example.

Hi - I suspect you might want to adjust some of these changes to take into account the underlying Bing offset here.

It's not (just) about "damaging the database" - it's about communicating what's happening. If someone extracts data or makes a map from OSM, it's helpful for them to know when there's a wholesale change to something that they might have been expecting.

Also, if a mapper is adding e.g. "amenity=fitness_center" they'll continue to do so until someone tells them that what they really means is "leisure=fitness_centre" (and explain why it makes sense for people to use one tag when describing the same thing worldwide).

In addition, very often a portion of things that were tagged a certain incorrect way have other errors (e.g. in this case missing building tags) or might be not make sense at all, and be more of a typing error than a mistagging.

Hi - I think that something went a bit wrong here. The deletion of node/1354106849/history truncated 2 bits of the westbound A45 so that there's now a gap in it (see note/430380). Also way/220911277/history was deleted - is that what became way/60403355 ?

This looks very much like a mechanical edit. Was it discussed anywhere first, as it should have been according to osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct ?

Finally got to check these today - both way/343442814 and way/61432263 are signed as public footpaths at the eastern end on the fence at the edge of the bypass. There's a stile to get you over the fence in each case though what you do after that I'm not sure (the southern one has no adjacent gap in the armco barrier). I'll get around to updating OSM with it all in a week or two. There's still the Murton side to check of course.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I thought that Camelot way/51972439 closed a few years ago - has it really reopened?

It's been a while since I was there, but I'm pretty sure that way/32151252/history#map=18 didn't used to run half in the residential area and half not.

way/364638827#map=15/37.7117/126.5505 has no tags on it. Is it a road, and if so sort what sort is it?

Hi - just wondered if you might be able to help with a question about "NCN 62" relations? There are currently at least 3 of them, and they seem to have the same content - relation/12763 , relation/4022097 and relation/4032425 . I'm guessing that they're all really the same thing (they seem to have the same tags). One of the new ones was created in this changeset, and one in changeset/25310154 .

(to compare them try for example http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=4032425 ).

Changeset comments are really helpful to other mappers though. I occasionally visit the Dane Valley and nearby and map stuff there, and it'd be interesting to know what had actually changed and why. Was some extra attribute mapped that wasn't before (perhaps the width of the roads)? Was there an alignment problem? Without going through each object in detail it's not possible to tell, and even after that it's not possible to know whether the updates were based on survey, local knowledge, or something else.

Sure, but looking at changeset/4179372 the changeset comment was "lakes refined with Landsat" and the other objects in the changeset are "natural=water; source=Landsat" - it seems much more likely here that the user simply mistyped that as "natural=source".

The mental picture I have of "heath" is similar to the canonical wikipedia example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heath.jpg . It's got heather growing on it, but there's more to it than that. "Heather" on the other hand is just a small plant - an area with heather growing on it isn't necessarily a heath. The Scottish one way/241361362#map=18/56.10427/-3.93210 could quite possibly be "heather", but not "heath" - perhaps ask the original mapper or add a note to try and find out?

way/247100046 is in many ways even odder - it's in a tropical part of South America, so "heather" seems fairly unlikely; maybe it was actually a typo and the original mapper meant something else altogether?

As I presume you aren't going to fix this (or maybe just aren't getting osm.org emails), I've done it in changeset/33782434 .

Are you sure that way/367243493 is really all one building? My recollection is that it's not but actually several, and that Sowters Row is not enclosed for most or all of its length. Have a look at the imagery without the data at http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2#map=19/53.23560/-1.42759 if that makes it clearer. If you think that something is incorrect, perhaps add a note explaining what and why so that a local mapper (there are about 3 locally, including me) could go and check? I certainly wouldn't want to make changes to a dense urban area without an on-the-ground survey. There's some other likely misplaced and misspelt stuff here too that could be checked at the same time (node/350316199 isn't in the middle of the road, for example).

Hello,
Would it be possible to use more informative changeset comments than simply "corrections"? That doesn't explain what ws changed, why, and what the source was?
We're all updating the same map and we have to work together to do that, so it really helps everyone else if we all use descriptive changeset comments.
Cheers,
Andy

Please don't use the main OSM server for test edits. If you want to test things in the editor, there's a test server available at http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org (it needs a separate login from the main OSM site but is otherwise similar)

You can add any amount of test data you like there without it causing any problems on the live map.

Cheers, Andy