Hello Mikikiki,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 7 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on the node node/3012088324 . We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Salut Secumax,

Sper că nu vă deranjează că vă întreb despre o editare de acum 8 ani. La acest set de modificări ați adăugat o etichetă „source=Google” pe nodul node/1487136624/history . De fapt, nu o putem folosi ca sursă în OSM, deoarece licența Google nu permite să fie folosită aici - ar cauza probleme reale pentru proiect dacă s-ar descoperi că folosim Google Maps ca sursă.
Dacă acesta este undeva cu care sunteți familiarizat, atunci „source=local_knowledge” ar fi perfect OK.

Toate cele bune
Andy Townsend, în numele grupului de lucru al datelor OSM

Hello Secumax,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 8 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on the node node/1487136624/history . We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hallo Asterix200,

Ich hoffe, Sie haben nichts dagegen, wenn ich nach einer Bearbeitung von vor 8 Jahren frage. In diesem Änderungssatz haben Sie ein „source=Google“-Tag auf dem Knoten node/2329242254/history hinzugefügt. Wir können das eigentlich nicht als Quelle in OSM verwenden, weil die Google-Lizenz es nicht erlaubt, es hier zu verwenden – es würde echte Probleme für das Projekt verursachen, wenn wir Google Maps als Quelle verwenden würden.
Wenn dies ein Ort ist, mit dem Sie vertraut sind, wäre "source=local_knowledge" vollkommen in Ordnung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Andy Townsend, im Namen der Data Working Group von OSM

Hello Asterix200,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 8 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on the node node/2329242254/history . We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Thanks for fixing the gaps again!

If way/37906937 is inaccessible from the north (gas works) then that's correct of course - but if none of it is accessible I don't think that "access=no;foot=designated;bicycle=designated" conveys that - it suggests that it's still accessible by foot and bike.

I wasn't looking at the rendering - I just spotted that the number of pieces of relation/5479822 had done up by 2, and the browse page of node/4068947014 shows that it's at the end of one way - way/37906937 .

Some of this - St Albans - is from (rusty) local knowledge. Others (Colne Valley, Osgathorpe) just filling in the gaps.

Hello,
Any idea how node/4068947014 connects to the north now, or whether way/37906937 is even part of relation/5479822 and the other cycle routes at the moment?
Best Regards,
Andy

Good guess, but note/614778 reckons "fence and gate" :)

Hello,
You've added way/977639953/history as a "golf=cartpath" here. Please don't do this! Only map things in OSM as what they really are. In this case, the castle is already mapped as relation/1622127 .
If there's a problem with some downstream golf software that is asking you to do this, please ask someone to change that software, or make edits like this outside of OSM.
Best Regards,
Andy
PS: Any other questions - please ask!

I've reverted this in changeset/117200180 .
As an aside, when (as here) there's a problem with a relation, it's always worth checking the local edit history to see if there has been a deliberate change. In this case there's lots of construction around and changeset/117115889 was only yesterday.
If in doubt, ask on talk-gb or talk-gb-westmidlands .

> It appears someone is removing these.
Yes - https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/999681100 shows the changes over time to way/999681100 . How the iD editor (the OSM editor that you're using) handles things what the OSM wiki says have on occasion been different.
The "other person changing things" tried to tell you that at changeset/113095220 .
There was an issue raised against the iD editor at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8748 and https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/issues/203 , which are both resolved.
In terms of _displaying_ things, both the rough way/999681100 and the fairway way/875490560/history appear to render as you might expect them to, so I presume all is OK now?

Excellent - thanks!

Can you give any more details - I've seen a few people doing it, so I presume there are some instructions somewhere? I'm aware of https://chadrockey.github.io/TGC-Designer-Tools/TUTORIAL but I guess that's not it because I can't see a mention of "office" there.

Thanks - any idea what prompted the "office" tag?

Hello,
The changeset comment here is "west sussex tag upgrade2". What were the tags you changed things from and what were the tags you changed things to?
It'd help to know why because there seems to be an edit war at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/999681100 , which helps no-one.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
In this changeset you've added way/181280803 as a large private building, which it obviously isn't, from looking at the imagery. Can you explain why it was that you added these tags to it?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello (and a belated welcome to OpenStreetMap!),
I just noticed that way/832601082 has an "office=yes" tag on it, which seems a bit odd - what sort of office is it?
Best Regards,
Andy