Thanks for the replies!

On reflection its mainly the addition of the postfixes that are giving me "this dataset should not be the name tag" vibes, especially with the "Pole Transformers" everywhere.

Looking at the "Open Infrastructure Map" project I'm getting the sense this is a case of mapping for render.

I appreciate could do with wider discussion so I'll hold fire changing the names already mapped.

Another thing I've noticed is that "Substation" or "Transformer" is prepended to most (all?) of the the nodes you've added - is this from the NG data source?

I have verified that some substations don't have this as part of their name
e.g. node/9974532958 is labelled as "Shelton Flds." [Sic] Adding "Substation" here would be descriptive and redundant thanks to the tags.

Sorry to be a bore, to be clear I generally think this information is useful, I'm just a bit cautious about imported datasets.

I had a look at a couple of pole transformers on my walk today and couldn't see anything visible on the grey box apart from a ref on the pole.

From the wiki:
"Do not use name=* if:
The feature is unnamed in the real world"

If its hit and miss perhaps "ref_name" would be more appropriate for the pole transformers?

Hi, could you please explain why?

My understanding is that these are descriptions given by National Grid and rarely (if ever) used in the real world. official_name gives this context.

Just to hopefully clear up a couple of things:

Motor vehicle access is implied "no" on footpaths (it should actually highlight this in the iD editor!). It is still good practice to be explicit, especially for pavements in the UK so this work isn't wasted.

To decide access routing software should look at the "access" tag then the individual foot/bicycle/motor tags.
---
I've removed the access=no tag on a couple of ways that aren't pavements as could still legally be accessible to cyclists. e.g. way/943374864

I've also updated the tags to use the more standard highway=footpath ones.

PS great work mapping the pavements btw!

Thanks, my bad.

Hi, thanks for the additions.

I'm removing the separate cycle way as cycle lanes part of the main highway are tagged using the "cycleway=lane" tags which already exist. highway=cycleway is typically used just segregated cycle paths.

Hi again, hope you had a good solstice.

I appreciate this was a while ago but do you have a source for the tag "ref=SW (2)" used for the Shropshire Way?
This change set appears to be the source of it.

Just an FYI there is a note with some interesting discussion about the tags used for the drovers pen, hopefully you can help clarify note/4356262

Hi, thanks for your contributions to mapping in rural Shropshire!

Can I ask that you make sure not to delete landuse=residential when adding details as they provide a useful resource and currently it is making it hard to query residential areas in the areas you've mapped.

I've added one area back here but it'll take time to add the others. changeset/166483498

Thanks

Hi, I'm not sure I agree - the officale_name tag can be used by itself and isn't necessarily a fallback tag like alt_name or similar.

The name of these overpasses suggest they're what would be used in official documents e.g. by the government highways department and are not colloquial names (try using "South 85-South 280 Connector Overcrossing" in a sentence :) ). In this case official_name is appropriate although there is also bridge:official_name, which I think might be more appropriate.

Hi, I've changed the the highway=construction to highway=proposed as not under construction. I'm not really sure this is suitable for inclusion on OSM, especially so early in the scheme

Hi, I agree that scrub is a better fit for the old rec ground. However still think that this area should be tagged as brownfield in someway as unlikely to be developed anytime soon due to landfill contamination.

To do this I've added a containing brownfield area (relation/18517949) - I think this better groups both the containing features.

Hope that works for you too. :)
Thanks

Hi, this looks interesting but I'm struggling to actually see any evidence that the locks are still there? If they're not then they should be removed or have more appropriate tags (natural=water should be removed)

I've added a note to the hoops node. I'm not sure how easy it would be to map as an area as I don't think there are any visible court markings

Hi there is a basketball court on south west of the paved area (you can just about see the hoops in the imagery) but locals insist on parking on it 😔

Hi Magrej, I've set way/1299058556 to access=yes as it is a public byway (BOAT). Thanks

Hi there, thanks for the comment! Brooks are usually small or intermittent streams however the definition is arbitrary and their modern day function can depart from their name.
I'm not sure the waterway=brook tag had being marked as discouraged on the wiki when I made this commit but it makes sense as the intermittent=yes tag sufficiently covers it.

I've updated the tags to replace waterway=brook with waterway=drain as I think that is more appropriate vs stream here.

Thanks

Hi willisturm - this stop is explicitly signposted as coach only. Coaches are usually considered a different form of transport in the UK (although I apricate it is quite arbitrary). In this case the stop is only used by tour groups. Is there a way of tagging this?

Going by tourist_bus=* (also key:coach) I suggest the following might be agreeable:

bus=no
tourist_bus=designated
highway=bus_stop

Or is the note tag sufficient?

I apricate you're just trying to keep the data clean. Thanks

Great, thanks a lot.