Sources:
Aerial imagery; note/2225813

Oh and in case you're not aware of the (rather awkward) tagging convention, see here: osm.wiki/Church

Ceci n'est pas une church!

Hi FortQuake

Thanks for your edits, especially clearing up many of my queries around Bourne.

I notice you "made a church into a church" at St John the Baptist Stamford.

I wonder if you meant to do this? The church is disused by the CofE, though it's still consecrated and you can often go in for silent prayer. But there are no services and (afaik) no consecrated host in the tabernacle. It's managed by the Churches Conservation Trust as a sort of museum.

After I described the situation to user smb1001, he changed the tag to disused:amenity=place_of_worship. As he's catalogued almost every Anglican church in England, I'm inclined to stick with his judgement.

That said, no one mapper gets to dictate, so the discussion could be had!

Let us know your thoughts.

Just a quick note to say that "Shahjal" mosque" is almost certainly "Shah Jalal" mosque. As I recall from the excellent YouTube video the letters were falling off the sign, but it also declared itself as a Bangladeshi outfit: Shah Jalal is the man credited with bringing Islam to Bangladesh, and a huge number of Bangladeshi-run mosques take his name. (Off-topic for mappers, but there's a write-up for those interested here: https://sacredsites.com/asia/bangladesh/hazrat_shah_jalal_sylhet.html)

Hi

Long time ago this changeset. One of the QA tools is flagging the 'track=1' tag on way/104058044

It seems to expect 'tracks'. I wonder if the tag has been superseded by <railway:track_ref=*> but as I'm not a railway buff I don't know.

Any tips from you? Thanks,

eteb3

@SK53 thank you. I don't use the shortcuts, rather right-click and +

But that sounds much simpler, so I'll do that in future (and eventually learn JOSM perhaps...)

Hi
Thanks for spotting. I'm wondering if I should just give up on relations: they must always be complex, but iD makes it almost impossible (for me) to assess the work while one builds them.

Fixed, I hope, here: changeset/111423153

If you have time and inclination, you could check my other relations edits of the past few months: this one I remember being a headache, for example:
changeset/110697193

Hi Pollokshields

Thanks for adding the mosques on Nithsdale Road.

Please see my note for a query about whether they may be duplicates.

note/2855677

forgot my sources: SS16 sourced from eyeballs on signs on Crouch End Hill and Crouch Hill. alignment from Bing

Thanks, that's v useful. I may change those 2 nodes you did to the waste_basket option

Thanks.

That is "map-vending machines": machines that sell maps

Oh great, thanks!

Ah ok thanks. Do you know a way to see when it got the location it now has? I can never see moves on the changeset but maybe theres a way of finding the info?

Hi user_5589

You modified a bus stop in this changeset - node/502333244

It appears it may be out of place, but I'm not sure: is it meant to be within the bus station (on the 'platforms'), or is it on Sheep Market outside it?

Thanks and happy mapping

eteb3

Hi abc26324

Could I ask about the retaining wall you've put here? My info is that it doesn't form a boundary of the bus station with the north-south arm as you have it - it just runs E-W on the longer 'side' you have put.

Thanks

Hi Robert

Just a quick question re node/5545208403 which is amenity=needle_exchange

From the location I wondered if this was actually just a needle bin, or whether one can get clean 'works' there too (in exchange for dirty ones).

Also I see there are two instances in Germany of service=needle_exchange, where you and I (in Peterborough) have opted for amenity=needle_exchange. Any views if we should harmonise those? If so, I wonder if "service" may be better, as the German ones are located within an amenity=social_centre (or similar - I forget exactly what the value is) and these places are invariably staffed, so "service" may be more appropriate.

Thoughts welcome!

Hi Andy. I'm just discovering osmcha. I see this changeset is flagged with "invalid tag modification". You're hardly a novice user: do you know why that might be, so I can learn to weigh osmcha's comments accurately? Thanks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110405631

Hi

Thanks for clearing up those notes in Bourne (and all the rest you did!)

Just checking: is 'practise' on the Hereward Practise building a typo? way/963959496

The site itself is tagged as a hospital named Hereward PractiCe.
way/386352628

Also is it really is a hospital rather than an amenity=clinic ?

Ah no probs! Thanks for your input. A no-data response is still useful.