Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!,

On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK. If not, we'll have to undo this change.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!,

On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK. If not, we'll have to undo this change.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!,

On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK. If not, we'll have to undo this change.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK. If not, we'll have to undo this change.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!,

On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK. If not, we'll have to undo this change.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!,

On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK. If not, we'll have to undo this change.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,
Just to let you know, I've changed "sidewalk=both=separate" to "sidewalk:both=separate" on these in changeset/175309008 - that's the more usual way of expressing this.
Best Regards,
Andy

Assuming that way/1249561327/history has "Smyths Transport" in it I'd be tempted to add an "office=company" node in there to help people locate it. I don't think that people will find just "depot=truck" with no other tags (as you've seen, Nominatim (the OSM search) doesn't know about it.

Thanks!

The person who added note/4518625 says "Address for this place is completly wrong". I presume they're using Nominatim to work out the address. Part of the problem is that there's no address on the house, so Nominatim grabs the nearest road and uses that as part of the address (fair enough I guess). The other part is that Nominatim returns "Clones ED" as part of the addresss (because it is tagged with boundary=administrative and admin_level=9). I guess that it's _possible_ that that's correct, and people really would think of that as part of the address, but the person adding the note doesn't think so.
Nominatim is not great at doing "location, nearest town county" so "Smithborough, Co. Monaghan" isn't going to happen any time soon but "Kilcorn" might if they stick an Eircode on it.
Electoral Districts aren't mentioned on osm.wiki/Ireland after Dermot's latest update, which is why I'm thinking that perhaps they aren't considered administrative.

Is relation/6984703 really an administrative boundary? It shows up in the details at https://nominatim.osm.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=W&osmid=117141623&class=highway as if it was; that was prompted by the note saying that the address from Nominatim is wrong: note/4518625 .
Separately "what Nominatim returns" in UK and Ireland is under discussion, see https://2025.stateofthemap.eu/session.html#Y8TMQT and the slides from there.

Hello,
Is there any reason why
relation/6490317#map=19/51.534133/-0.006630
has a gap in it that is a different relation
relation/17648128
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I've mp idea whether it was your edit here, but relation/5487096 now has some gaps in it - see http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=5487096 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Not sure how it happened but there's now a bit of a gap at relation/2894908#map=19/51.699189/-3.628884 ?

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
You've extended way/46343328 here up towards the north of Callendar. Previously, e.g. at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gqC , the national park boundary followed the river. Now there's a duplicate line that you can see at relation/1957067#map=12/56.2578/-4.1927 . I'm guessing that your route west of Cambusmore Quarry is correct, but I've no idea of north of there.
When you've finished editing you can check it with the JOSM validator (see @SomeoneElse/diary/406398 for help with that).
Best Regards,
Andy
PS Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask!

I think that "location=rii" might be a typo?
See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gpC .
Cheers,
Andy

Thanks!

I've not been in for years but news reports suggest it was still there in at least 2023.

Any reason why you've gone with amenity rather than man_made for these? Previously there were 70 uniquely man_made https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2g2d and 45 uniquely amenity https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2g2c , and 16 both https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2g2f . There are now 234 amenity, but the wiki page is against man_made osm.wiki/Tag%3Aman_made%3Dmounting_block
I don't mind either way (I've always shown both) but some people do get sniffy about creating more things under amenity :)

Thanks for fixing this. You've no idea if there's a diversion for the New River Path signposted, have you?
Just asking on the off chance...
Cheers,
Andy