As I think you’ve found, adding too many landuse=grass areas can be a bit much!

landuse=grass is meant for areas which are just grass and have no other use, such as verges, central reservations, etc. — see landuse=grass

In most other cases, it’s better to tag the area for its use (e.g. cemetery) and then add surface=grass or landcover=grass to refine the rendering. (Sometimes it won’t change the rendering, but the data will be there at least.)

Hope that makes sense, it’s a little bit fiddly :)

aah, I see you already added the nodes in changeset/167050170 (which I just looked at after this changeset). Nice work!

Another nice edit, it’s nice to see some historic detail being added!

A note about gates: they should be drawn in the closed position (even if they’re normally open), and need a node in the middle which is also tagged as barrier=gate. See barrier=gate#On_a_way

It seems a bit duplicative to me to need a node and a way to map the extent of a gate, but that’s what the wiki says so I go with that :)

Noticed on these gates, for example: way/1391360518 way/1391360510

Why? Is the house name incorrect?

Nice work :)

Great, thanks for taking the time to check :)

Please don’t “remove unnecessary detail”. One person’ ‘unnecessary detail’ is another person’s pet project. As long as the detail is correct, it should stay. :)

Hi Kaduna, thanks for taking the time to check other sources and adjust the tagging again :)

I agree a survey would be the best next thing to do, to verify the ground truth. I’ll open a note here, which should pop up if someone’s surveying the area (e.g. with StreetComplete).

Hope you have a good day :)

For anyone looking at this in future, please see the discussion on changeset/166869616

Please don’t connect ways (like this one way/118865778) to the centreline of the roads, it makes future edits harder (the rec and road can’t be edited separately) and it’s not correct (the rec stops at the kerb, not the centreline of the road).

Oh dear. Unfortunately, that’s not allowed by the licensing terms of Google’s imagery — see osm.wiki/Google. If OSM had a license to use that updated imagery, it would probably be available in ID already.

Unfortunately, I think that means this changeset is going to have to be reverted, unless you can point to an alternate source which corroborates the changes? We can’t have copyrighted data in OSM as it’s incompatible with the license, and opens the dataset up to copyright infringement claims. :(

None of this is visible on Bing aerial imagery in ID as far as I can see — where are you getting updated imagery from? I’m interested to use it, thanks.

Heya, are you sure about this; what’s your source?

If this bit of parking aisle is one-way, then why is there a ‘no entry’ marking on the road where the give way node is (node/9366722074)? It wouldn’t be necessary if this bit of parking aisle was one-way.

In addition, if this bit of parking aisle was one-way, the accessible parking space (way/1384940581) would only be reachable by doing a lap of the building, which seems unlikely (but possible).

I’ve not surveyed, I’m only going off aerial imagery — so if you’ve surveyed it I’ll definitely defer to you. I just wanted to check :)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for the detailed house name additions here.

I guess you might be the person who’s been leaving notes in Portinscale over the last few days. If so, thanks for taking the time to register and add more detail to the map! If you have any questions after going through the welcome tutorial then feel free to message me and I can try and help out.

Since you haven’t replied with any more information, I’ve re-added the Wasdale shuttlebus in changeset/166562208

Why have you deleted the Wasdale shuttlebus route? As far as I understand it *is* running this year: https://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/plan-your-visit/getting-to-the-lake-district/wasdale-shuttlebus

Please also provide a more detailed changeset comment than just “Fix Bus Routes”. This changeset deletes two bus routes rather than fixing them, and just saying ‘fix’ doesn’t provide anyone else with any information about what was wrong with them. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks

Ah, that makes sense. Can you point me to the discussion/issue report about getting the renderer fixed please?

You can see the superroute relation here: relation/4080347

Heya, thanks for adding the ID, but it’s actually already correctly set on the superroute relation which links all these route relations. The wikidata ID for the entire Pennine Way isn’t quite correct to use on individual parts of the route, so I’ve undone this change (changeset/166220709)

I should also mention: many Ordnance Survey maps are not suitable for use as data sources for OSM. Only the OS OpenData StreetView and OS OpenMap Local ones have a compatible license. They are available as layers in the ID Editor (see the background panel on the right).

In particular, OS 1:25k and 1:50k mapping is not permissible as a source for OSM, as the license is incompatible.

See osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey#Map_licence for more information.