Hi, could you please explain why the inner residential areas aren't members of the multipolygon? I was just about to add a new area in Montpelier to the relation, but now I'm unsure whether I should or not!

Hi ceirios, looks like you've got yourself upside-down and mapped the stream valley as a mountain ridge. The stream, Afon Mihartach, is already mapped from an NPE import, and the small side "ridges" that you've mapped don't really meet the definition of a ridge - they're probably best left to be represented by contours. Might be best off just deleting the whole changeset?

Yes, very familiar with taginfo. The other objects were all created by a single user, spiregrain, using a different dataset, supplied by a different local authority. There are inconsistencies between the way that local authorities provide NaPTAN data. Some off these have been addressed by the UK community, but I can't see any guidance for the "~:Modification~" tags. I'll wait until I hear something from the UK public transport mapping community for some guidance before making any further changes.

Hi, could you point me to where the list of "standard keys" is maintained? I'm a little unfamiliar with the purpose of importing from the NaPTAN datasets, so I've just copied over what I guessed to be useful. 'ModificationDateTime' was the header in the Bristol NaPTAN data so I used that. Happy to change it if you can point me in the direction of some guidance (the wiki doesn't include this header)
On your second point, I have included the date, so I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say.

Hi ndm, thanks for your explanation. It seems to me that you're conflating the physical occurrence of a structure (represented by building=*) with the activity / current use of the building. I don't think that it's a question of differing styles; the original proposal for the building=* tag clarifies this precise situation: see §Sub-divided buildings? in osm.wiki/Talk:Buildings. Here the distinct offices / shops can be mapped separately as office=* areas without a building=* tag. After your changes, by amending the original building=* way to just represent the name=Civitanivi part, it reads as if the other 3 parts were demolished and reconstructed with only this part retained. The alternative of using the Simple 3D Buildings method (not indoor tagging) would still retain a way for the entire building with the role=outline.

Hi ndm, why have you split this building into 4? As far as I can see it's a single building with four units contained, so would be best retained as a single building with multiple entrances and the various businesses mapped to single nodes within the area of the building. If, in the future, someone updates a change to the building (e.g name=*), they'd now have to change all four instances instead of just the one.

Yeah, you're right. It's signed as Google shows it. I was focusing on geometry with these changes. You're right, the tagging is excessive! It could do with a tidy up as you suggest. Am I right in understanding the bus and psv tags overrule the motorvehicle tag, so it does show buses can use it as it's tagged? (Albeit in a very messy way!)

Brill, thank you

Cheers, looks like I'll have to do the same for the EV1 route when I get back to JOSM today. That'll teach me for trying to use Vespucci!

Hi, are you an official for Boomtown?
As I understand it, OSM isn't the place for hosting temporary events (see osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features)
Looking at the Glastonbury site as an example, only the paths, fieldnames and permanent structures are mapped

Hi, nice to see the Three Queens development finally on the map. Any reason you've modeled it as separate buildings?

I know it's a little old now, but all of these addr:housename=Paintworks tagged addr:substreet=Paintworks, shouldn't they?

Cheers!

Hi Simon,
Loving your effort of adding separate pavements around here and Totterdown. Would you mind also updating the roads from sidewalk=both to sidewalk:both=separate (or :left/right where relevant) once you've made the improvements? If I understand it correctly, that should push routers to use them, and reduce the plethora of dotty lines on some renderers! :D

Sorry, I wasn't very clear there in my last point! I meant why did you choose to change it from a highway=footway to a *=cycleway? I didn't mean to question adding either foot=* or bicycle=* (as appropriate), just the primary highway=* tag.
I'm finding a lot of preference for using highway=cycleway on shared pavements, but legally the cyclist has to give way to pedestrians so makes a lot more sense in my mind to keep them as highway=footway, footway=sidewalk,bicycle=yes/designated,segregated=no. It more accurately represents both de facto and de jure statuses, and helps to promote cycle infrastructure (no evidence here!) by not overstating the density of cycleways.
On this example specifically, there aren't any signs that this portion is a shared pavement, and indeed the open data just says it's a quiet road recommended for cyclists, so probably worth reverting it unless you know something else? I'm happy to do it bundled in with other junction modifications if you're not bothered about it?

Hi, RyanBush, Would it be appropriate to add your work here into the River Avon relation?
relation/2795108#map=10/51.4590/-2.3719

Hi Adam, it's a little while since this edit, but I've picked up your fixme on way/521614195. It's only a footway=sidewalk, without cycle designation along this stretch so it was mapped correctly previously.
As for the cycle map you used as a source, is that the open access dataset off opendata.bristol.gov.uk? If so, I've found it to be seriously out of date and missing loads of information so I'd use it with a fistful of salt!
On a general point, what's your thinking behind changing pavements (footways) to cycleways? Surely their primary function is as a pedestrian "sidewalk" with cycle designation added, ie: highway=footway;footway=sidewalk;bicycle=yes/designated;segregated=no ? Mapping them as cycleways surely overstates the provision for cyclists, no?

Hi, Joseph2541,
I've just moved the neighbouring carpark back to it's correct position after I found it mistakenly dragged on to Gloucester Road.
I was also going to correct a few things here but thought I'd reach out first: the smallest parking area is actually a service road to the middle and SW (currently unmapped) car parks. The convention re. engratnances is for them to go on the buildings and to use barrier=entrance for a gap in the wall as it is here (although it's not common to use).
See the wiki on entrance=* for some guidance

Super, thanks for checking

Ah, OK. I'm not familiar with StreetComplete yet, but the OSM.org website shows the items included in the changeset when you click on the version history link at the bottom of the sidebar. I'm referring to your changes to Victoria St (191318878, v11 & 1311021375, v2) made 3 months ago.
If it is an error, don't worry about fixing it - I'm about to make some changes to the map re. the bus lane so can revert it then.