Added more wood around them to make them less awkward.

My thought here was that adding the information to the NF blocks at least bounded the disconnected blocks. So for these bits it shows what the land over is of the NF. Obviously it is an incomplete picture, but the ideal path forward would be connecting the blocks rather than deleting the ones that exist. It's always best to not delete information if it's accurate, and instead improve upon it.

Also, just because it's not useful to you does not mean it's not useful to someone else. There are many people in OSM with some pretty niche interests. It's a risky game to play to delete contributions just because you're not a fan.

I would argue about this being religious landuse. I'm seeing a retirement home and a school. Though they're Catholic-run, I wouldn't understand them to be doing religious activity like I would say of a church or similar.

I didn't see any signage at the gate against entry for peds. It does say bicyclists should dismount (which is silly if cars can drive...). I figured motor_vehicle=private is incorrect if customers are allowed, so I guess that ought to be =destination or =customers.

Also, the website for the museum says no one should wander the grounds without paying for entry, but that's not clear from the street.

I noticed you removed the maxweight tag. Could you instead change the tag to the correct number if you have local knowledge or another source? I suppose that it should be "0.75 st" for US short tons? Thanks!

I suppose that would work. I haven't been up here in awhile, so I can't recall if there are every cars parked on the side of the road. I've seen roads with great "shoulders" that were also for parking, and thus semi-unusable for cycling safely.

Looks like you dragged Jerry's Automotive south. Appears to be an accident?

Haha thanks Mapbox!

Good call. Images here: https://imgur.com/a/vR7j9hK

I understand that "oneway=no" isn't wrong, but is it necessary?

Is the Seton Court outline supposed to be tagged as building=university? I see it also has layer=-1. I'm not too familiar with the area, but I don't think there's a building under all this?

Thanks for adding this to the map. It came in handy for me today!

I noticed in this changeset that you added some POIs. I checked some street-level imagery, and it looks like a lot of the buildings you added POIs in are not exclusively filled by those businesses. Notably, you changed the Dovecote Cafe from a node to the whole building. Many of these old rowhouses only have a business on the ground floor and apartments above. Unless I'm positive that the whole building is used as a business, I prefer to map POIs as points. Thoughts?

Should be good now. Thanks for catching it.

Hello,
I saw your change to the paths here. I don't disagree with the change to footway, but "footway=sidewalk" is a very specific designation for footways bordering streets (osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way) that can be used for specific routing or rendering.
-- P

Don't get me wrong, I think the NSI is great, and I've contributed myself. "Faulty" is probably the wrong word. Perhaps I misunderstood something down the line, but as you are supposed to map what's on the ground, I figured that if e.g. "Long & Foster" is not identical to what's actually on the front of the building, it's not wrong to change (or keep) the name to what it says when you're standing in front of it. Another example is that branches of businesses might say on their sign the local branch name (say, "XYZ Business - Location Name Branch"). I think this is useful information to add.

That said, I guess it's not wrong per se to change the name to a consistent version, but I also think that can be maintained with the 'brand' tag. I can understand both arguments. I don't think anyone will fail to find a business because of a slight naming difference in either direction.

Hey Sparks,

I see you have a lot of experience, but I just want to mention that fixing iD warnings without local survey can cause some issues. Notably, adding information to businesses using the Name Suggestion Index is often faulty because it replaces the locally accurate name with a default generic. Often, a local POI will have a different or extended name on the shopfront. For instance, Long & Foster (=estate_agent) is locally Long & Foster Realtors.

Also, I just checked a few of the "shop=boutique" to "=clothes" changes, and that seems correct, but frequently shops are named "* Boutique" and aren't clothes stores.

Just some thoughts. Thanks!
--P

Thanks for the link! That's pretty clear. While the sign states "(and respectful allies)", it really doesn't seem to push that idea. It does seem like =only is right.

I don't think it contradicts it, but I can see that the statements could be interpreted in different ways. I reworded some of the value descriptions on the wiki to try to clear up some ambiguity.

In countries with anti-discrimination legislation, I don't think it's possible to tag "lgbtq=unwelcome" because that is by definition unverifiable—for example, a shop cannot legally put up signs that deny entry, so another mapper could not check on it. And where it is legal to discriminate, I think "unwelcome" = "no".

I suppose that there are probably cases where places *have* put up signs saying such things even in countries where that is illegal, and as such they should be tagged "lgbtq=no". But then there are bigger issues...

If the signage states that allies are welcome, should the lgbtq tag =primary? With =only, I would expect that any non-LGBTQ+ individuals would be denied entry.

I found this POI when looking at lgbtq tags. It looks like the undocumented tag "lgbt_friendly" was replaced with the documented "lgbtq". However, the value "=no" means that LGBTQ+ people are denied entry (lgbtq=*). I believe that such discrimination is illegal in the UK, so this tag would be incorrect. As the wiki states, it is unverifiable to tag "unfriendly" locations.