It looks like way/314217635 isn't joined to the road at the north end, which means that routers won't be able to send people down here from the road. Presumably in reality it does actually join?

way/313903392#map=18/53.07854/-2.20189 seems to be unjoined at one end? Presumably it should join Silverstone Crescent?

I've changed it back into a road again in changeset/27043459

If way/4073641/history is no longer a secondary road, how does the B6128 get from the south of Ossett to the North?

One other thing - wikipedia is an incompatible licence. It is licensed CC-BY-SA and OSM data is licensed ODBL. The "official" description and links are here:

osm.org/copyright

Essentially (and please bear in mind that I'm in no way a legal person!) ODBL is slightly more flexible - it doesn't impose the same requirements on Produced Works that CC-BY-SA would (see

osm.wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline

and

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline

for more definition of that)

That means that CC-BY-SA isn't compatible with ODBL; ODBL can't guarantee CC-BY-SA contributors what they would be due. So that means no copying from CC-BY-SA sources into OSM, and hence no copying from Wikipedia.

Also, wikipedia is not actually a source at all - it's supposed to contain "no original knowledge". All data in there is supposed to cite some primary source (which of course will have its own licence terms).

It's part of both of those routes, but none of the bits of track between Derby and Willington are _named_ either of those things. Trust me - I've caught trains along there many times.

I'm not convinced that e.g. way/312080901 is actually called "Cross Country Route"? Where's the evidence for the name?

Hello,
Would it be possible to explain what the source of the change to way/59173896/history was? It seems a bit odd - a 60mph limit on a road with crosswalks and an at-grade railway crossing?

Did you survey it yourself, and if not, where did you get the speed limit information from?

It's important that information in OpenStreetMap is accurate and from a compatibly licensed source. I explained back on 28 October 2014 how to ensure that changesets have useful comments on them - you're still not adding these. If you continue not to do so we'll have to take further action.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (on behalf of the Data Working Group)

Oops - that created a duplicate gate in node/3197305575 . Fixing it now...

For info I've stuck "highway=unclassified" on way/309678331 based on the previous "bridge" tag.

Hi msheerin17,

What was the source of the "maxspeed" change from 45 to 55 on way/228767383/history ?

I previously sent you a message on 28 October asking this on behalf of the data working group - we haven't yet had a reply.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of the OSM Data Working Group.

Among other things in this changeset you've changed way/111839233/history from "trees=berry_plants" to "trees=strawberry_plants". Was this based on survey, and if not, what? Looking at the imagery, it's possible that the plants concerned may be strawberries, but they may be one of another sort of berry with similarly squat bushes (gooseberries, for example). How do you know that these are actually strawberries?

Reverted in changeset/26948088

Reverting following message from the user (that said what they changed but not why) in changeset/26947938 .

Hello,
I think that something's gone a bit wrong with some of the things in this changeset. For example, way/313798519 looks like a building but the "building=yes" tag seems to have got added to a node at the corner rather than the way itself. To fix it when editing, make sure that you click on the way before adding the tag. A few other buildings in the changeset seem to have the same issue.

One other thing - using the "Potlatch 2" editor you may notice that imagery disappears as you try to zoom in. Unless you're using Internet Explorer, you may find it easier to use the other in-browser editor ("iD") which supports "overzoom" of relatively poor imagery - as you zoom in it doesn't disappear. The standalone Java editor JOSM also supports zoom in this way.

Anyway - hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to help.

Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
This changset mostly seems to be a worldwide mechanical edit of "trees=fixme" to "fixme=trees". These are supposed to be conducted as per osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy (which includes discussing them beforehand - did this happen in this case?). However, in addition to this change some information was lost - look at way/241224746/history and way/241224747/history , and you will see that the previous fixme values have been overwritten. It would therefore make sense to revert this change so that discussion can take place, and so that the lost information is restored. Are you able to do this or do you need me to help?

One more thing, please do use meaningful changeset comments. "landuse fix" provides absolutely no information about what you changed (beyond the fact that it involved landuse keys), or why you changed it. You added a source of "bing" to the changeset but left fixmes in place, so the source is really unclear (and way/241224746 doesn't really match the imagery).

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of the OSM data working group.

Based on the imagery I'd suggest that way/202750049 was also a building (and it also looks like a rectangual building, rather than the vaguely quadrilateral one currently mapped).

If the buildings for the old post office and the old pub are still there, I wouldn't delete them; just change their use.

Also, node/3196406735 needs some sort of tag (perhaps an "office" tag?) so that it doesn't appear in the database as just a name. If you can't find a suitable tag just make one up - you can search within the iD editor and also using http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/ .

OK - all back I think, apart from the land west and north of way/313706153 . I'm pretty sure that's not really a in any sense a "meadow" but I'll have to have a look next time I'm down there, which'll probably be some time next week.

OK - figured it out (part memory, part looking at the 2 stiles and the end of the wall that got erroneously merged together). Where there are complicated features like multiple stiles and gates, and bits of wall next to bits of fence, I suspect you'll need to rely rather more on ground survey and rather less on Bing for these changes