Thanks, I’ll tweak those two buildings now then

No worries, there’s absolutely no expectation for new contributors to understand how to do building passages. The tagging associated with them is not trivial!

Before I make some edits to add building passages, I’d like to confirm what happens around the back (east) of the County South building. In particular, what the service road (this one: way/28562925) does. Does it go under a new roof, or into a vehicle door, or is the road drawn too long and it actually stops at the edge of the building?

Thanks a lot! If you’ve got any questions about OSM tagging, just message me. I’m local and happy to help out

Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for your recent edits to Lancaster uni!

I noticed that you’ve tagged the buildings LEC 3 and County South as layer=1, probably to resolve a warning that they cross service roads. This tagging indicates that the buildings are (entirely) hovering over the service roads, which probably isn’t right. It’s more likely that the service roads go through arches or small suspended portions of the buildings; in OSM terminology this is known as a ‘building tunnel’.

Is that the case?

If so, I can edit the map to add building tunnels to resolve the issue, if that would help?

Ta
LEC 3 County South

Nice work, thanks!

Changeset message got cut off. The full thing was:

Further clarify naming of rivers Twiss and Doe: Twiss is the one to the west, Doe to the east, and this is consistent with all other maps except OS 25" 1892-1914 and OS 1:25k 1937-1961 which label the west one incorrectly as Doe and the east one as a continuation of the River Greta

Hi, is there something verifiable on the ground for each of these checkpoints? If there is, then thanks for adding them. If there isn’t, then they probably don’t belong in OSM as no other mappers will be able to verify or update them over time. Thanks

Hi, are you sure this is correct? The network is already tagged as Instavolt. The operator is normally used to tag the company whose premises the chargepoint is on. In this case, that’s Booths.

You also seem to have changed the west-most chargepoint from fee=yes to fee=no, despite the other chargepoints still being fee=yes. Was that deliberate?

Thanks

It being a bug in ID makes sense. How frustrating. It looks like it’s this bug: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5658. Thankfully there’s been some movement on fixing it recently.

Anyway, thanks for fixing the problem with Stony Rigg! Happy new year :)

Hi, was the change to the elevation of Stony Rigg trig (node/433596449) deliberate? This changeset dropped the unit from it, which means it’s now interpreted as being in metres. There’s no hill/trig in the UK which is over 2000m high though.

Hi, is this an automated edit? Did you check it properly? You moved a load of seemingly valid information from the building area to a new node and completely deleted the phone number (which according to their website is valid).

Hi, what are these sites? To a third party this edit looks a lot like you’re adding personal notes to the map.

You have also broken the boundary relation for Crosby Garrett (relation/8356740#map=14/54.4638/-2.4192). I will fix that.

Nice work!

Thanks for fixing up my guesswork :)

Thanks!

I agree that JOSM is probably suggesting addr:village due to other tagging in the area: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1cXr

Some of it may predate address tagging becoming a bit more formalised

Hi, thanks for your recent edits in Galgate.

One minor suggestion: addr:village= is not a recognised tag — it’s not documented on the wiki (addr=*), so consumers of OSM data won’t be looking for it.

I think the correct tagging for houses in Galgate is addr:city=Galgate, and no addr:village= tag. There’s no need to mention Lancaster at all.

Would you like to update the tagging here, or shall I? :) Ta

Hey, thanks for your edits to Kendal recently. It’s great to see some detail being added around the south end of town :)

The way you’ve mapped these flats looks appropriate to me.

One thing you might want to look at is the entrance= key (entrance=*#Entrances_and_addresses). In situations where there’s one apartment building with (say) two staircases, entrance= can be used on two nodes on the building’s outline to tag the entrances for the staircases separately. addr:flats= can then be used to say which flats are accessible from each entrance, as shown on the wiki.

From the looks of it, though, that’s not needed here as it looks like there’s a full-height party wall between each apartment building, at least on the satellite imagery. i.e. They’re terraced apartment buildings.

One small thing to point out which you could do in future would be to press the ‘Q’ key when a building is selected to automatically square its corners. It makes drawing regular building shapes a lot easier!

Thanks, and happy editing :)

> Try to tell me how *practically* you imagine "multiple changeset" in this case.

A significant number of the changes in this changeset are in the US, so that could be one changeset. There are other clusters in Chile, South Africa, Vietnam and central Europe; so one changeset each for those.

Or you do one global changeset and make it clear exactly what mechanical edit has been made, i.e. document “Removed invalid surface=[0-9]+ tag, only mechanical edits”. The fact that your changeset comment also said “small local updates” means that nobody can trust the changes are all uniform, and hence the only way to review the changeset is to look at every single node/way it touches and use OSM deep history on them.

Note that a changeset of this size is too big to load in osmcha or achavi successfully, so changes have to be manually reviewed node by node.

What I say definitely is related to the changeset. I have examined the changeset. You’ve fixed weird values of surface= all over the world. That’s a good change, but it doesn’t need to be done in one changeset. Submitting these changes in multiple changesets, one per country, is possible and many other people manage to do so with their edits using JOSM.

Did you read the wiki page’s reasons for why submitting changesets over large geographical areas is not great? This changeset will be showing up in many, many people’s osmcha feeds. That means that either tens of people will spend time reviewing this changeset even though it’s probably unrelated to their editing area; or *nobody* will review it because it’s too big and they all think someone else will review it.

If problems are found with your changes in one country, you risk the rest of the valid changes in the changeset being reverted as a result.

Yes it is. In JOSM, select the modified objects in a single country (https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41728/in-josm-can-one-select-objects-within-a-given-country-outline, or just do it manually), then ‘Upload selection’

Smaller changeset areas please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets