I noticed that you had added a deep tag to the ford. I was prompted by the current discussion on the talk-gb list about hazardous fords.

I really wonder how you can assign a depth which is highly variable. Is this just a guess?

Just checked the history, and see that it was marked as residential many years ago. Looking at old imagery, there seem to be a few houses around the edge, but it most of it looks like industrial/commercial typical of an old quarry...

I have just received a email from SW Water which says:
"since last year have brought
Hawks Tor, an old disused quarry, into use as a new reservoir."

So surely your tag of residential can never have been right?

Presumably it needs updating at the very least. I wuld have said construction, but the email suggests that it is already a reservoir.

Maybe, just maybe, I might be able to survey later this year.

Yes, it looks a bit odd. I think that josm prompted for both tags.

I got the name from the sign on the wall seen in my video/gps.

I am not even sure that "place" is the right tag for a single entity, although perhaps place=farm might work. I guess that I will do that.

You seem to have added a higway tag to a node. Why?

Thanks for spotting that. I even had that plugin installed. I must say that even now, finding that option in the tool icons is not easy, and I need to remember to search for the right term (paste, say) to find shift-R. Josm is wonderful and can do almost anything, but when in a hurry, it is hard to find just what is needed for unfamiliar use cases.

OK, I have done a quick fix. By opening both josm and OSM view of the node, I could tranfer the tag information although it was still a bit tedious.

Yes. Yes. Josm complained as well.
I was in a hurry and it was a pain to transfer all the tags from the node onto the new way. Not that I think it's a very valid complaint by the editors. Maybe there is a simple way to move the information, but if so I have missed it.

When I have a bit more time, I will try and remember to clean up. Mind you the node is near the entrance, so I should probably tag the entrance as well, although I think there has been some tagging list discussion about entrance tags recently, so I hope that isn't going to be complicated. I might end up adding a small service road with a gate.

OK. I guess that you are a new mapper, and just getting used to the system. I use josm, so I can't help with iD which is what you seem to be using.

I was only drawn to look at your edits when you deleted a track that I had surveyed without giving any source beyond Bing. It may well be that that track has indeed gone, but it might still exist, but just not be so evident on the images.

Most of your edits seemed to be aimed at restricting access, or removing information, rather than refining it.

Most of ypur changes to private are valid, although I am not entirely sure about the Bromag estate. I know that is probably strictly correct, and that there is a gate and a security guard (or used to be).
But I suggest that access=destination might be better. There are many companies there who presumably need customers to visit, and access=private does suggest that there is no access.
access=destination is compatible with being private, and indeed implies that it is private.

You seem to be concentrating on local farms, so I suspect that you have local knowledge. If so that would be worth noting on source tags and on the changesets.

I think that many of your other access=private might well be better as access=destination for similar reasons for the Bromag Estate. Amazon now use our map for their deliveries (an often also contribute edits, although not always of the highest quality). If Amazon wanted to deliver to the Bromag estate or one of the local farms, they need access = distination I think.

Oh, and welcome to openstreetmap!

Why have you done this. does the road not continue into the court yard? It seem sthat you are removing real information rather than adding detail. Perhaps add the gate and access tags, although I haven't checked those details.

You have removed a track that I surveyed with gps some years ago. I passed Field Farm earlier today and yesterday, but did not check on the track, since i hadn't noticed your deletion.

You only give Bing as a source: have you visited Field Farm to check?

I am using my own gps-enabled dashcam video. I normally record gps in no less than three ways when surveying from a car: my Nextbase gps dashcam, my satnav running navit with track record active and (the most accurate) a garmin Etrek 20 unit.

So I have multiple gps tracks and gps-stamped video, all collected directly. And I normally work from multiple surveys. So I do normally have pretty accurate traces, and often find the Bing and other imagery has offsets, particularly when parallax errors arise on steep slopes. All except the Garmin gps tracks tend to be less good under tree cover, of course. The Garmin does reasonably well under tree cover, although less well than when there is a clear sky. Of course, all the tracks suffer a bit among tall buildings. But all this is well known. I find mapillary video very poor: my video is vastly better quality than the typical mapillary offering, and of course is continuous video rather than widely spaced frames. I don't think that I have ever used mapillary for actual mapping.

That all said, in this particular changeset, my Garmin was only working for part of the way, but I have previous Garmin tracks along that road.

Short of a professional differential gps, or a home brew system based around a u-blox NEO/LEA-M8T or similar, I don't think I can do much better with consumer gps.

Do you think that I have been inaccurate somewhere here?

On another point, I was thinking of contacting you anyway over speed limits.

I was sure that I had already mapped the speed limits, but my memory may be failing me. I could not check because you had somehow erased the history of at least some sections of the road. Despite your changeset comments about adding speed limits, they were in fact missing, so I put them back. The positions were taken from careful checking from the gps-stamped video frames, further checked against Bing imagery, and I would be very surprised if there was an error of more than a a meter or three in the positions.

In passing, please do try not to erase history. I know that can sometimes happen when a way is split. Also you did not update the source tags: perhaps it did not need an update, but it really ought to reflect the most recent changes, but the impression given is that your latest changes were from a video survey which I assume was not true: but perhaps you too are using video?

I have noticed that you have done a lot of useful work in the area recently. We probably ought to keep in touch. I have mapped various bits around Bodmin Moor, Liskeard and areas mainly down to the South coast including pretty detailed work on the coast path in the Looe and Talland areas which I had not been able to update because of Covid. I see that you have done some recent work down there, especially the restored path to the West of Talland Bay. I hope that you have fixed the spurious heath nonsense which got added some years ago which looked like tagging-for-the-renderer.

I have finally found time to look at this.
I have followed your suggestion.
The service road on the other side of the river leading to the alleged ford is marked as No through Road, so that is additional evidence that there is no ford today. I really need to walk down that road and survey properly, but there is nowhere to park anywhere near. And while I have walked around 20 miles to that area with a group, I couldn't hold up the party while I went off on a survey of that area. So I am not sure that it will be properly surveyed anytime soon.

Sorry but this is just nonsense for the area around 519163993. There is no quarry here nor has there ever been anything like a quarry. You may not like surface_mining for whatever reason, but unless you have a better idea based on a ground survey, then please do not modify it.

Also, you did not modify the source tag giving the misleading impression that "quarry" was validated by gps, photography and local knowledge which was decidedly wrong.

Another example is Mole Valley Farmers? Where is the building?
Where is the history?

You seem to have retagged various places on the Moorswater estate which were already properly tagged.
You have also deleted previous tagging which makes it hard to check the history.

You have also changed the style of tagging which is dubious. Normally a building and its current function and different aspects. So a shop would normally be a node, and the building in which it is housed is a separate way.

I noticed this for Toolstation where the building had disappeared. You have also incorrectly taged it as hardware. It was already tagged as trade which is the correct description. The trade subtag was perhaps too restrictive as "building_supplies", and I have added hardware to that since that is a small subset of what they offer. We could perhaps find a better terminology.

I notice that you have done much useful work in adding building outlines to many places in Liskeard which is great, but please try not to delete or incorrectly modify existing work.

Even the recent Bing imagery is out of date in places, and there are significant offsets here and there.

This is the kettle calling the pot black. It is you that have made it worse. I improved the database better by changing the tag to "mixed" which reflects reality far better than residential. You simply ignored that with no local knowledge or consultation.

Because it would be a huge amount of work. This whole thing is total garbage, and I had tried to make some sense of it by tagging it as "mixed", *and* added a note about the problem. I did not expect someone without local knowledge to come along and revert that change without consulting me or improving the situation, especially someone who I know from various lists as a responsible mapper.

I am very very reluctant to delete substantial work by previous mappers, which is why I did not delete the whole thing. Portions of this vast area are correct, but much of it is completely wrong. I often used to come across this incorrect tagging in local areas, start correctlng it and then discover it was vast and just impossible to correct without sorting out the whole thing which is just infeasible in any reasonable time.

I think that the best thing is to just delete it and then we can start tagging landuse properly and incrementally.

As I say, I am very relunctant to delete previous work as opposed to correct and improve it, but perhaps that is best here.

I had not thought of converting it to a multipolygon, which might perhaps make it marginally easier to update, but it is still more work than I am prepared to undertake in any reasonable time.

I notice that you have added amenity tags to buildings. Please don't do that. Buildings and the amenities within them are separate entities. The use of a building may change over time and there may even be multiple usage of buildings. You seem to have modified places that I have mapped without any consultation. You do not seem to have any local knowledge or surveyed the area.

Sorry. I seem to have made a mistake. It looks as if the old library was not merged with Stuart house after all. My apologies.