https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/72843115/ shows this changeset, including the deleted areas; if you click on one of them, it shows the old tags. So if you trust that data’s correct, you could copy it across. Otherwise, resurveying would definitely end up with the correct data. The new building outlines do look a lot better! :-)

Did you intend to remove all the house names/numbers when redoing these houses?

Nice. Feels like we’re getting somewhere with all this EV surveying you’ve done recently!

Thanks for fixing it. Have a good day :-)

Hi, thanks for improving OSM. Does the barn really have 0 levels? That would mean it’s flat.

OpenData StreetView says ‘Park La’, but that’s just because it’s truncated. Pretty sure it should be ‘Park Lane’. I’ve made the fix in changeset/71210381. Anyone with local knowledge who knows better can improve it.

Should this road actually be called ‘Park Lane’? But then there’s another road parallel to it which is already ‘Park Lane’.

Hi, are you sure that’s right? I assume the intention here is that:
- access is private
- access is only allowed on foot (no vehicles, bikes, horses, buses, etc.)

If so, I think the tagging should be access=no, foot=private, because the access tags ‘stack’. Any access method which isn’t specified explicitly takes the value from osm.wiki/Tag:access=. So access=private and no bus= tag means that private access by buses is allowed (which is ridiculous).

I’ve changed the tags to what I think was intended in changeset/71099675, but I’d appreciate if you’d take a look and see whether you agree! Ta.

Makes sense :-)

Would disused=yes be relevant here?

No worries. I undid the move of the village name, but the rendered map tiles might take an hour or two to update. You’re probably seeing the old version of the tile in the middle of the village (with the old village name on), and the new version of the tile north of the village (with the new village name on).

Hi, I don’t think changing barrier=entrance to entrance=yes is correct, regardless of what iD has to say about it. entrance=yes is documented on the wiki as an entrance to a building; barrier=entrance is documented on the wiki as (essentially) an opening in a barrier which doesn’t have a gate across it. That’s probably what was meant here. I’ll revert that change.

Hi, thanks for editing OpenStreetMap. I’ve partially reverted your recent changes around Ireby because you ended up tagging a few kms of road as a bridge. I don’t know what you intended to do, but that obviously wasn’t right. There are various people around to answer questions if you have any; just leave comments here. Thanks :)

A huge selection of tools is available, and I’ve confirmed that the other bike racks currently in the map are still present on the ground.

changeset/70811921

Thanks a lot!

(For reference, TheBlackMan fixed this in changeset/70789776.)

🥳

Yeah, this change looks wrong. Some of the changes, like clothing → clothes, might be fine; but the rest of it is wrong. The recycling containers I surveyed accepted (and did not accept) specific things. Paper cups and tetrapaks, for example, don’t generalise to paper and plastic packaging.

Nice, thanks.

Hi, there’s already a building for the Quaker Meeting House in Grasmere, just south of the node you added. Are there two parts to the meeting house, or is one of them an unnecessary duplicate?

Thanks for your edits. In the iD editor, you can press ‘Q’ to automatically square the corners of an area, which makes it easy to square the corners of buildings.

(Note: The keyboard shortcut used to be ‘S’ — it changed recently.)