(Sorry for the somewhat confuse wording, that’s the fault of editing a text too much after typing it.)
Again: Mapping for the renderer means entering wrong data just to get a desired rendering. For instance, mapping a concrete-paved area on a pasture as "landuse=residential" only to have it in gray colour. My saying is, "While we do not map for the renderer, we neither do mapping against it". Entering farms as nodes to get their names rendered on the correct positions is certainly useful, not just for the rendering but also for the search function in navigation aids, or for Nominatim to "know" the place. This is what a geo database is there for, so why should it be wrong? That’s why I chose the phrase of killer argument here, sorry if it sounded rude.

I cannot accept the "mapping for the renderer" killer argument here as it does not apply here. "Mapping for the renderer" is entering wrong data in order to achieve a specified picture on the map I changed one invalid tagging meaning to represent a farmyard into a valid tagging doing the same. If, in this case, the information "this is a farm named Lower Bushey Farm" has been in the database ever since, and if it is incorrect now, it has been incorrect before as well, since I did not alter any information, I just changed it into a valid scheme. I cannot see anything "more inaccurate" in this.

Thanks for asking! landuse=farmyard, like other landuse=*, would be technically wrong on a single node since they are defined for outlines only (i.e. closed ways). So in ost cases coming across single landuse=farm nodes, I decided the first mapper’s intention was to get at least the farm’s name on the map rendering, if not its lateral extent, so I mostly changed these nodes on visible farmyards into place=farm (which was what has been meant IMHO). Since I have no means to decide whether it’s still a real farmyard or has been turned into a residential hamlet, I have to rely on the previous mappers’ work here. On Bing imagery, this very incarnation looks like a working farm to me (might be outdated though, no capture date given).

I agree that landuse=farmland is of pretty little use (moreover, it’s not clearly defined from landuse=meadow, so there are areas already where these two collide). landuse=farmyard, on the other hand, is of higher value for the walker or bicyclist, and I wouldn’t really like to miss them (or even their names) in the maps (and quite a lot of the farmyard elements edited by me bear names). This here effort was rather a sporting one, of course, and I do apologize for not having spent my time on more pressing issues ;-) And please don’t let you keep from mapping those areas more carefully as I just added four letters to the landuse=* value.

These were the last landuse=farm on the British Isles, so please don’t add new ones :-) And just in time we were, the new carto revision (which will not render landuse=farm any more) seems to have been switched active a few hours later.

You placed junction nodes on the ramps and named them according to direction. This is good purpose but unusual mapping.

- Junction nodes appear on highway exits at the very node where the exiting way splits off.
- Junction nodes bear the junctions name, not the direction signed.
- Destinations are tagged to the ways splitting, using the destination=* and destination:ref=* keys. So navigation aids can display the signed destination they mean their driver to go.
I altered these two accordingly. Keep up the good work :-)

Ich nehme mal, das Verschieben von node/4581726285 um fast 600 Meter ins Wohngebiet rein war ein Versehen, oder?

Ergänzung: Bitte die Quelle des Namens als source:name=* drantaggen, aus dem Bing-Luftbild waren die bestimmt nicht ersichtlich.

Name ist, wie es heißt. Das muss nicht zwingend als Schild vorhanden sein, sonst dürften wir bei keinem kleinen Bach und kaum einem Berg den Namen dranschreiben. Mir reicht es hier, wenn der Mapper aus sicherer Quelle weiß, dass die Gebäude dort so heißen. „ehem. Schweinestall“ ist allerdings wirklich ein merckwürdiger Name.

Hab die zwei privaten Swimmingpools wieder entfernt. Solche Details mappen wir auf Privatgrundstücken nicht, nur Gebäude und evtl. Zufahrt.

Changed them back to hw=service but would still prefer to leave it that way. The driveway issue needs a general discussion IMHO since it’s interpreted in such different ways: some mappers use it as a default for any small lane, while for most renderers that makes them far less important than unpaved footpaths, confusing the map appearance in a way that makes it impossible to plan hiking routes. I would deprecate it entirely :-)

Sorry but which qualification does it actually need to be hw=unclassified? In the Wiki, I cannot find anything like "council maintained", I only find that hw=unclassified is the lowest category of public roads, while hw=service are mere access or special roads to particular places and not connecting to anything else. Here, the road leads from High Lane through Brownber and back to the eastern end of Newbiggin (btw, how many Newbigginses are there in the UK? Thousands I fancy), so it’s definitely more than just an access road.
As for service=driveway, I strongly avoid this tag even on small access roads unless there is not a single path branching off it. Most renderer maintainers seem to have the same opinion about that, displaying hw=path and hw=track at much lower zoom levels than service=driveway – so if a service=driveway tagged road leads to a path as well, the latter will show an open end in several zoom levels. Yes I know we do not tag for the renderer, but since all renderers grant so little importance to service=driveway, I am quite careful where to apply it.

Hi, I saw you re-tagged some small lanes hw=service + service=driveway. I took the liberty to change them to hw=unclassified since they do not lead to a single destination only. Please keep in mind that service=driveway should be used for small driveways from public roads into private property only (see wiki). As soon as a small way leads to several dwellings and/or does have other ways branching off it, it should in no case be tagged service=driveway. Thanks!

Hab die Talbrücke der L 288 mal an die GPS-Spuren vom Server angepasst, die verlaufen in der geraden Verlängerung von Süden. Bing hat hier offenbar einen gewaltigen Knick in der Optik.

I strongly second this, just wanted to assume good faith first – maybe something went wrong in a well-purposed edit.

It was that news which encouraged me to do so :-) I roughly hit an appropriate position I hope? I just guessed the spot with the densiest building rate.

Some of these springs look more than suspicious to me – invisible on Bing imagery, right in the middle of fields. Where did that information come from?

Would be great btw if you could comment your changesets (short description: what kinds of changes have been done), and specify your source of information. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Selbst wenn für den Weg ein Benutzungsverbot bestünde, wäre es eine denkbar schlechte Lösung, ihn einfach aus dem Datenbestand zu löschen. Es ist dann nämlich nur eine Frage der Zeit, wann der nächste Mapper den vermeintlich fehlenden Weg in guter Absicht neu einträgt. Viel zweckmäßiger ist es, den Weg in der Datenbank zu lassen und die Zugangsrechte entsprechend dranzusetzen. Dann können Karten den Weg als „zwar vorhanden, aber verboten“ darstellen, und Router werden ihn nicht nutzen.

Auch ein zugewachsener, unbenutzbarer Weg sollte mit entsprechendem Tagging (z.B. abandoned:highway=path) in der Datenbank bleiben, um zu verhindern, dass er vom nächsten Luftbildabmaler wieder eingetragen wird.

TL;DR: Eine Löschung ist in keinem Fall eine zweckmäßige Lösung, für keine beteiligte Partei.

Östlich des Fuldaer Hauses ist kein Zeltplatz. Hast du eventuell den Jugendzeltplatz 200 m westlich gemeint? Der wird vom Fuldaer Haus aus betrieben. Dann kann node/3166232203 weg, ich will ihn aber nicht ohne Rücksprache löschen.

Ich hab an den kleinen Sträßchen (z.B. Kunstmeile) das access=destination in motor_vehicle=destination geändert (sonst hätte es auch für Radfahrer und Reiter gegolten). Heute war ich da spazieren und sah keinerlei Beschilderung, die den Verkehr irnkwie einschrönke. IMHO sind das ganz normale highway=unclassified, die dem Verkehr zur Verfügung stehen. Vielleicht war da mal eine Beschilderung, die jetzt weggenommen wurde?