Hey, it looks like a lot of this edit is a raw GPS trace which duplicates the existing road and has no tags. I assume that’s an accident?

Cool, hope it looks correct to you now. Happy editing :)

Hi, thanks for your edit. Unfortunately you accidentally marked a large section of the canal towpath as being in a tunnel. :) I’m not sure what your aim was, but I’ve undone those changes and fixed one spot where the canal towpath was crossing the canal south of Ratcliffe Wharfe Lane. :)

Hi, thanks for responding! :)

You could upload photos of the waterfall somewhere (https://www.geograph.org.uk/ is good), that would be helpful.

If you’ve named it yourself then the name can’t go into OpenStreetMap, as it’s not meaningful to anyone else, and can’t be verified later (by looking at a signpost, for example). See here for more information: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability

The waterfall itself, as a physical feature, can definitely be mapped.

Hi, thanks for your contribution to OSM. I can’t find any references to this waterfall on other maps, and don’t know of it from my walks locally. I’m not sure it exists. Can you please provide some contextual information about it? In particular, where does the name come from? Thanks.

Re-added in changeset/88922872 :)

Hi, thanks for your edits around Barrow recently. In this edit, you deleted some solar panels which were recently mapped on Walney School. Do you have local knowledge that they don’t actually exist? See here for the reasons why it’s useful to map solar panels: osm.wiki/UK_2019_Q3_Project:_Solar_Power

Also, note that you can press ‘Q’ in the editor when a building is selected to automatically square its corners, which makes the map a bit neater.

Ta!

Hi, thanks for your recent edits, they show a lot of local knowledge and attention to detail. One note — you can press the ‘Q’ key while an area is selected to automatically square its corners. It helps with drawing buildings and other regular areas. Cheers!

Nice work on South Lakes solar recently :)

I see. Unfortunately there are a few issues with your edit. Primarily, you deleted all the existing metadata from the restaurant, including its name and address; and you relabelled it as a hotel. The new outline isn’t square (you can square a building up by pressing ‘Q’ with it selected in the editor).

There were some issues with the metadata of your changeset too: please keep edits localised, rather than combining changes from North-West England and Alaska into one changeset. And please provide a changeset description which actually describes what you’ve changed and why you’ve changed it (not just ‘s’) so that others know your intentions.

Looking at your changes in Alaska, they don’t look right either. You’ve changed an administrative boundary into a subway.

I’m going to revert this edit. Please take a bit more care in future! :)

Hi, can you clarify what happened to the Owl and the Pussycat restaurant please? Their website says they’re still open. Thanks

I've reverted the changes as changeset#87641097, using http://revert.osmz.ru/, thanks for replying about it :)

All of these national parks are already mapped, and mapping them again as a single attraction node does not make sense — a national park is an area, not a single point.

Would you consider reverting this changeset?

Hi, thanks for your edits around St Bees! Just to check, is the big building on Sea View a single detached house, or is it a terrace? If it’s a terrace, you can tag it as building=terrace. building=house is intended for detached houses, or individually mapped semis or terrace houses. :)

Removed in changeset changeset/87295651

No problem, thanks for engaging constructively :)

> If it was there, and then removed, as you state, than it was unkindly done (to say the very least) to remove it without informing me.

I would assume that lakedistrict was lacking in time, rather than being actively unkind. There has been quite a lot of vandalism or troubled edits in this area recently, and lakedistrict has spent a fair amount of time fixing it. A comment on your original changeset would have been appropriate, though.

> That there is no indication of it on the ground is a weak argument: the OSM database holds thousands of entries that cannot be referenced on the ground.

That there should be an indication of it on the ground is a core principle of OSM: data must be verifiable. A balloon launch site without any local signage indicating it as such is not verifiable. See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability

As a local myself, I can attest that there’s no signage there that I can remember. It’s someone’s garden.

> If the location is incorrect, then it ought to be corrected, not removed. I much loathe the illustratred spirit of "this is not correct, away with it". So much more satisfying is "this leaves room for improvement, let's improve it." It is not by removing things that a complete database can be realised.

In this instance, we have the choice between leaving data which we *know* to be incorrect in the database, with no way of improving it (because nobody knows what’s more correct). Or removing it and allowing it to be re-added later if someone can verify a more accurate location.

> That said, I must plead guilty to not having any local knowledge available

Then please defer to the local mappers who *do* have local knowledge of this area.

There is no publicly open or signed balloon launch site here. If balloon launches do take place, they’re by prior private arrangement.

It’s been re-added without additional evidence in changeset/87282555. I’ve commented there.

Hi, you previously added this in changeset/87222049 and it was deleted by a local mapper in changeset/87223894 because there is no evidence of it on the ground. The node is currently mapped in the garden of a private house.

If you have local knowledge of where regular balloon flights take place from Gilpin Bridge, please give details. Otherwise this looks like an import of data from a random website, not informed by local knowledge and not backed up by on-the-ground evidence, and I think it would be best to delete the point again.

Cheers.

Hi. If you’re going to add the website to lots of nodes, could you consider ensuring you use the appropriate HTTPS link, rather than HTTP? http://bupa.co.uk redirects to https://bupa.co.uk, so it would be neater to use the HTTPS link in the first place on OSM.