Nice one. Note that the platforms and stop_positions for a given bus stop have to be in a stop_area relation (public_transport=stop_area).

Thanks. I was rushing a bit, so missed those few things.

Nice! Do you have a plan for the addresses too?

Some minor problems with the building passage here, which I fixed in changeset/56355640:
- Passages through buildings should share their start/end nodes with the building
- They should be tagged as tunnel=building_passage and layer=0 (i.e. the same layer as the bottom of the building, not beneath it)
- Driveways should typically be access=private since they’re not public highways

The wiki explicitly says that addr:place and addr:street are mutually exclusive: addr:place=*#Tagging.

I’m not entirely satisfied with how we do addresses for business parks (or street names for them, either; ‘Fell View Trading Park’ being a road name irritates me) but I couldn’t immediately think of a good solution, and this changeset does at least make the climbing centre consistent with the rest of the addresses in the Lake District Business Park.

If I can think of a better tagging scheme for business/industrial parks in future, I’ll retag everything consistently. Not planning on doing that now though.

It would also be relevant for the places where we have (for example) addr:street=Woolpack Yard and the address checker expects addr:street=Highgate. However, changing all those nodes consistently would be a massive effort and I’m not sufficiently convinced of the value or longevity of addr:parentstreet yet. Maybe all the yards could be changed if this does pick up steam.

See the blurb at the top of http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/addresses/street-warnings/LA.html and the recent mailing list discussion on talk-gb (‘Errors in Street Names in Addresses’).

tl;dr: addr:parentstreet does nothing except to make the errors go away on the street warnings list. In the future, if it picks up traction, some other tools might start to key off it.

Nice!

Great, thanks!
(For future reference, it was fixed in changeset/56321960.)

Is the bit of Burrow Beck south of Bentham Road supposed to be layer=-1 even though it’s not in a culvert?

Done.

Thanks for your edits! You can use building=house rather than building=yes to make the tagging a bit more specific for houses.

Bother, I didn’t check on the notes to know to look for it. I didn’t spot it, but I could easily have missed it (the car park was rammed). I was unsure about the best way to tag Big Onion, since they sell all sorts, including food. I wanted to avoid a food-type shop just in case people thought it sold everything. I’ll go with shop=art, thanks.

Done in changeset/56219174.

OK, I’ll have a re-read of that lot and potentially revert the highway= changes here in the next few days. Thanks.

Please join up terraced houses. Some of these houses are overlapping, which isn’t physically possible!

They’re within a residential area. I think ‘residential is a bit of a misnomer’; unclassified is definitely wrong, since it’s for the little back roads which connect villages: highway=unclassified. The test I’ve been using is ‘if it’s got street lights, it’s probably highway=residential’.

I’ve got various links to different checkers for OSM on my user page (osm.wiki/User:Gurglypipe). If you are interested, you might want to take a look at what they throw up for Bowerham/Hala/etc. and see if they point out other improvements you could make. :-)

(I realise the page isn’t well documented, so if any of them don’t make sense, drop me a message.)

I just want to say thanks for all this house mapping you’ve been doing. It’s great work!

Houses which are terraced in real life should have connected nodes on the map, so that the areas are joined together. Could you update these houses to do that please? See what the existing ones on Moorefield Close are like for an example. Thanks.

Good point. Done in changeset/56133545.