Sure. I'm not in the area - this was a drive-by survey, using whatever tags were in favour at the time. If you can improve the tagging, go for it.

Hi. Just looking at this one - this appears to be a bridleway with a public right of way. Any comment or anything I should be aware of before changing foot/bicycle/horse from 'private' back to 'designated'?

Came here to say the same thing as the previous commenter - the address added to this park is that of the Washington DC offices of the United States Bureau of Land Management, and not of the park itself.

A little unnecessary? Mapped correctly at the time (12 years ago). Looks like it was removed sometime between 2015 and 2017. https://maps.app.goo.gl/PSyzNDb8xrw1SvNJ6

Hi. I know this is an ancient changeset, but just to let you know it really is Brinsham with an 'n'. The original place name was Brinsham, the nearby lane is Brinsham Lane, and this is Brinsham Park/Brinsham Fields. When the school was named, a typo was made, and it became Brimsham Green with an 'm', but that's just the school - everything else is with an 'n'.

For example: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.555872&lng=-2.411563&z=17&pKey=168463378535696&focus=photo

Cheers

I've added psv=yes as per your fixme, which allows routing of public service vehicles

I know this is an old one, but I've just noticed this edit.

Access tags work by the specific overriding the general. So a general motor_vehicle=no blocks traffic, then buses and taxis are specifically allowed by use of the psv=yes tag

motor_vehicle=bus isn't a thing. See access=* for the hierarchy of access tags and allowable values.

So it was already correctly allowing buses through; I've put it back to how it was.

Except building:min_level was correct :-)

Hi. Has this actually been built? If not, it should either be highway=construction (if construction is in progress), or highway=proposed (as it was before the edit).

Secondly, even if built, it probably shouldn't be highway=motorway_link unless it's actually under motorway regulations. highway=tertiary would be more likely.

Also, the name should just be the name - avoid putting descriptions in there. So no (unfinised [sic] M49 link); feel free to stick that bit in the description or note tag instead.

Cheers

Oh, and even further afield... it's caught buildings in Wales too. Llanmartin Primary School, Bristol NP18 2HB??

Hang on a mo... just noticed that these changes stretch quite far out of Bristol. For example, in the upper-right part of this changeset, the post town is Wotton-under-Edge, but you've added addr:city=Bristol. Even addresses in Wotton-under-Edge itself now have a post town of Bristol? What was the source for which post town to add?

Oh, and I just noticed that was your first changeset! Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Hi
We can't use developer maps - OpenStreetMap has explicit permission to trace details off Bing imagery and the others, but we don't have permission to copy from DWH's copyrighted plans. It's also quite likely that their map (and planning applications etc) is in itself derived from Ordnance Survey data, and we must avoid even a whiff of that getting into our data (in fact, that's the whole reason OpenStreetMap started in the first place). There aren't many hard rules in OpenStreetMap, but number one is "don't copy from other maps".

I know it's painful after putting the effort in, but I feel this ought to be reverted. Options to then redo it in a 'safe' way include walking the roads/paths and taking GPS traces, using something like Mapillary on your phone to take a sequence of geotagged photos (that's how I've done the rest of the area). Precise building placement and outlines may need to wait until imagery does arrive, but you can still add nodes in approximately the right position and add addresses to those.

Shout if you need any help.

Cheers,
Paul (southglos)

Hi
Which imagery is this from? I can't see these houses in any of the available Bing, Esri, Mapbox or Maxar imagery - am I missing out on something? :-)