We have a modern stone circle near here, built as an April Fool’s joke, which I hadn’t mapped until reading this diary entry but have viewed from a nearby public footpath a number of times. Now added with the man_made=stone_circle tag.

Thanks for this post. I was unaware of openaedmap.org and wondered how to change the colour of the AEDs shown (as all the ones near me are currently grey). It seems to be controlled by the access tag.

const accessToColourMapping = {
  'yes': 'has-background-green has-text-white-ter',
  'no': 'has-background-red has-text-white-ter',
  'private': 'has-background-blue has-text-white-ter',
  'permissive': 'has-background-blue has-text-white-ter',
  'customers': 'has-background-yellow has-text-black-ter',
  'default': 'has-background-gray has-text-white-ter',
};

I know I have many that should be yes and some that are in stores so should be customers, so when I get chance I’ll review them.

I’ve recently replaced (in England) a couple of beach multipolygons by beach areas (I was chopping the large beach up to add different names to different sections). It was really easy to keep pressing F in JOSM to follow an existing way that I was joining the beach to, when relevant, which seems to work in iD too based on a very quick test just.

I see that you’ve also updated the capacity and camp_site wiki pages, which is what I was going to suggest. I think it is great that someone who understands campsite mapping has seen the problem with the capacity tag being ambiguous and has suggested better tagging to help improve the data.

I guess you mean this community centre.

Being stuck at work at a desk, reading this diary entry has made me a bit envious. It also looks like we can also follow your travels by your edit history, as you improve OpenStreetMap as you go.

Looking at that lua code there are so many decisions I see you have to make for rendering. Even in this case where do you decide to draw the line on tag value usages (e.g. the 12 Temporarily closed and 10 Closed usages might also quality for this rendering), and that is only in the first few pages (I did briefly wonder what “closed; by appointment only” - 2 usages - means; is it closed or is it open by appointment only?).

Found it

Usually if not verified, yes, though I have found some flagged as “del” which were part of an active bus route. In that case I add the naptan:status=del (or whatever it is called naptan field) in as a reminder. In the first instance I tried to point out to the relevant bus company that the stop on their timetable was where a road had been diverted and the old stop location was now on a shared use cycle path nowhere near where a bus could go, but they just told me where the new stop was without seeming to grasp I was telling them their timetable was still listing the old one (by atcocode).

On the flip side, I’ve been maintaining local bus routes, and if a stop hasn’t been verified I’m happy to update it based on the current naptan information safely assuming the old information is out of date and not ground verified. If it has then I’m more likely to add a note to say a resurvey is needed to check current name (with a few exceptions such as stops verified about 10 years ago that were named after say a pub that has now been gone a number of years and replaced by say a supermarket and the naptan name now reflects the store name rather than the ex-pub name).

Harking back to the days before designation=public_footpath et al. there were some local footpaths which had been mapped with access=yes rather than foot=yes - I noticed these when one of the popular apps at the time added an invalid routing note on one such path (or more likely bug, in pre-notes days) as it was (perhaps reasonably) assuming access=yes included motor vehicles. I think I’ve now sorted all of them but was finding them for a couple of years where a longer path had been split and I’d missed the middle section (or even a short section over a footbridge).

Thanks for the link to the proposed tagging table in the wiki. I’ll consider tagging like that in future (I’d normally reserve designated for the blue and white signs, but I can see how they could be used for public footpaths etc.)

City and postcode in the UK aren’t generally mapped as boundaries.

I believe county is no longer part of the Royal Mail’s official address, so I wouldn’t consider adding an addr:county tag (though removing them where you find them is only going to bloat the database history too)

I’m not sure how after reading wikipedia you decided 4 surface tags are sufficient when the article says the ITF classify into 9 types (with the 9th being “other”).

It wasn’t so much about noticing it elsewhere, but when I tried doing pins for this map I gave up trying to work out offsets and settled on filled circles instead.

I’ve not checked, but is the marker position issue that the marker image has a pointy bit at the bottom, but the co-ordinates are for the centre of the image, causing a slight offset?

Can’t work out how to edit my last comment, but I suspect it is the opendata plugin that adds shapefile support https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/OpenData

I don’t know whether I have a plugin installed or not, but JOSM seems to have an option to open .shp files. I don’t know how or whether it will cope with the Nottingham shapefiles using OSGB projection. When I last used shapefiles some years ago the instructions at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles were helpful

I don’t usually map driveways, but I can see if you wanted pedestrian routing (perhaps for those with a visual impairment) to the front door of a property then you probably would want the drive mapped, and perhaps even a short footway from drive to door for connectivity.

I’m guessing there is a typo in “Dropping buildings up to z13 instead of z13” because otherwise I think even I could have written that patch ;)

I don’t seem to be able to edit comments - I wanted to add “or select fort in the Type section”.