No worries, thanks for re-adding them and for your detailed edits in the area :)

For anyone coming across this in future, the names were re-added in changeset/149008655

For anyone coming across this in future, see discussion on changeset/148872932

It does look like ‘Denham Way Roundabout’ is a correct name — it’s mentioned in official news about road changes around Fleetwood, like https://www.gov.uk/government/news/safer-new-route-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-near-fleetwood

I think the name should be added back.

Heya, good to see you doing more work on the roads around Fleetwood :)

This change looks like it’s removing valid data just to make the default map rendering look different — assuming that roundabout name was correct? Editing for the renderer is not recommended: see osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_renderer

If the roundabout name is being rendered in an unhelpful place, a better fix for that is to file an issue against the default map rendering style (https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto) to improve how all roundabout names are rendered.

Does that make sense and fit with what you were trying to achieve? Ta

No response to that point of the discussion, so I’ve changed the three station nodes back to railway=halt in changeset/148762569.

Hiya, thanks for your contributions to OpenStreetMap.

In future, could you please split your edits by geographical area? This edit touches both Scotland and south Wales, which means that everyone interested in changes in any of the areas between will be unnecessarily notified about it.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets for some guidance about it.

Also, please try and use a more descriptive changeset comment than ‘UPDATE’. It helps others know what changes you’ve made and why. See
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks, and happy editing!

For anyone else looking at this in future, see discussion on changeset/148228217

You appear to have re-added the changes as changeset/148664413, again changing halt → station.

In retrospect I realise I should have been more selective in my revert and not wiped out the rest of your changeset (which does contain some other small changes apart from halt → station). Apologies for that.

Unilaterally making the halt → station changes again and not mentioning it here feels a bit unconstructive to the discussion, to me.

How do you reconcile the tagging (as station) with the fact that the operator calls these ‘halts’?

I’ve reverted the change as changeset/148569986: the fact that the operator calls them halts, not stations, seems pretty bulletproof to me.

Hiya, thanks for your edits around the Eden. When making alignment changes, please make sure you align your aerial imagery to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels before starting to edit, otherwise you could be introducing a systematic error to the map. See osm.wiki/Property_extents_in_the_United_Kingdom. Basically, the aerial imagery is not guaranteed to be aligned to ground truth, either consistently across space or time. The Cadastral Parcels are the source of ground truth for alignment in the UK, so the aerial imagery needs to be aligned to them before you start to edit, otherwise you could be introducing location errors of up to about +/-3m in either direction.

Also, please do not delete and replace polygons: edit and move them instead. This preserves the edit history and hence others’ history of prior contributions to the map. It now looks like you were the first person to map these islands in the Eden near Warwick Bridge, whereas they were actually first mapped by randomgurn 13 years ago. See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Thanks, and happy editing :)

Heya, thanks for this. One thing I’ve found useful is to record the imagery offset settings I needed to align the (presumably Bing) imagery with the Cadastral Parcels when making an edit like this, in the changeset comment. Then other editors can use the same offset consistently in future (until the imagery is updated). Happy editing :)

(In future it would help others if you could provide changeset comments which explain your changes at a high level. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments Cheers!)

Thanks for the fast and helpful reply :)

Let’s keep the tagging tidy; I’ve reverted the changes as changeset/148361303

Hiya, layer=0 is the default, so why change the river Eden to set it? This looks like you’re trying to fix a problem somewhere, but perhaps a better fix is available — what is the problem? Ta

Why make this change? It doesn’t seem to comply with the flow chart on railway=halt

Opening a note would probably be better in future, as those tend to catch the attention of active local mappers who can help out

Thanks for your efforts to clean things up :)

Hi, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap.

OpenStreetMap exists to map everything, even things which are not publicly accessible. This access road was correctly mapped as access=private (meaning it’s only allowed to be used by authorised people), so deleting it was not appropriate.

As stated on previous notes around the Bradford Pothole Club, the data from OpenStreetMap is sometimes used by satnav software to suggest places to park. Up until a couple of months ago, the access tagging for this car park was not correct on OpenStreetMap, so satnav software may have inappropriately used it to suggest parking here. That has been fixed in OpenStreetMap, but it may take some time (months) for people’s satnavs to update. Deleting data from OpenStreetMap will not help that process, unfortunately, you just have to wait.

Happy to clarify further if you have any questions, just comment here. Ta.

(Changes reverted as changeset/148055438)

That is the name for this plantation, though, according to OS open data. How is it suspect?

I’ve re-added it in changeset/148007232

Please, split your changesets into smaller geographical areas when touching multiple unrelated objects. This changeset spans 5 counties.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets for why this is helpful to others

Hiya, thanks for all your edits around Grasmere and Elterwater recently. In future, could you please use more descriptive changeset comments than just ‘details’. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for some information about why this is helpful for others. Thanks :)