Just to clarify something - if there's no public access along a track but the track physically exists you don't need to "unjoin" the track - just make sure that the access rights on it are correct. There's already an open note note/152813 suggesting that footpaths and rights of way here need further work, and also footpaths like way/236871485 that need joining. It definitely needs surveying on the ground - even if it was licence-compatible, I wouldn't trust any official record to be up to date.

For info I've tidied a few bits up here based on what it looked like from when I was there a month ago. What's now way/335294941 is actually in a valley and barely visible from the east - there's certainly not the tree cover that the imagery shows. There are some trees between the TPT and the former canal but not many, and the TPT doesn't have any tree cover itself.

The Hopkinson site way/334930551 I've marked as landfill (they describe themselves as "waste management" - I'm open to better suggestions if you can think of one). I've also marked way/334931108 as landfill since in my notes I had it as "some sort of tip". I didn't get that far west but suspect that Renishaw Park might need looking at again - was the source of the extent of that from anything, or just based on the imagery?

I suspect that it'll benefit from a proper survey. It's a while (a year or so) since I was there, but my recollection doesn't match the imagery - and obviously both of those could be faulty :)

There's a veritable rats nest of trails here that need completing, too: http://waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=13&lat=53.29523&lon=-1.44605&hill=0#

In osm.org/user_blocks/624 it was made clear that " changes such as this need to be discussed with the wider community and different people's views taken into account.". You didn't do this, and were blocked for that reason.

OSM isn't just your database and it isn't just mine; we all need to work together as a community. This means that if you see "problematic" tagging somewhere (and it isn't a simple typing error such as "Highway" instead of "highway") you need to discuss with the original mapper and/or the wider community. Often (especially with newer mappers) when "odd" tags are used there will be a better way of tagging something but new mappers won't know this unless someone tells them - and anyone consuming the data will only know that it's changing if the change is announced somewhere.

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

Is relation/4726204/history signposted and verifiable on the ground?

I think that something has gone wrong here - way/334601141 seems to be a duplicate of way/311531344 ?

You've removed a tag that another mapper had added to way/25191831/history and replaced it with a note. Making changes such as this does not in any way improve the data in OpenStreetMap; it dilutes it.

Is way/334595009#map=19/53.29518/-1.32682&layers=N really landuse with the name "Renishaw Miners' Welfare" separate to the main building?

I noticed that you've updated way/127551396 but not updated the source tag. Has this been actually resurveyed or just done from aerial imagery? It's a while since I was there but are you sure that there really is so much more woodland now than previously mapped?

At the very least I'd expect some sort of discussion - someone will surely remember how relations such as relation/2542818/history came to be added 2 years ago (with a node in them), then have the node immediately deleted. Clearly a relation with no members isn't, as it stands, meaningful data - but is the fix to "just delete it" or to re-add the missing node?

Here's an overview of type=person relations, BTW:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/8mF

- Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of the OSM Data Working Group.

OpenStreetMap is a collaborative project. It's important that we all work together to create the best map that we can. If we didn't all work together I'd only have a map of some roads and footpaths where I live, you'd only have a map of what you've personally surveyed where you live, and so on.

It's important to communicate changes for another reason, too - if people are creating data that is in some way "invalid" (and that's still open to discussion here, I think) then it's important that the people who are doing that know that they're doing it so that they can do it differently in the future.

Yet another reason why it's important to discuss changes such as this is that people do use this data - they create maps (online and offline) from it, they extract datasets from it and they use it in other ways too. If you're changing the data that's stored they won't know why, when they extract something today they get different results to yesterday.

I've mentioned this changeset on the talk-it list ( https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2015-March/047202.html ) - I'd suggest that you engage with the Italian community either there on that list or here in this changeset discussion.

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

Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

This changeset contains a number of very unusual changes such as way/334241665/history which was a "lake where smoking was allowed with wired Internet access".

You'll notice that these changes have been reverted, because "test" edits such as this have no place in OpenStreetMap - here we map the world as it actually is. If you'd like to practice editing please use the iD editor walk-through (the test edits that it takes you through when you first start editing).

We welcome further edits to OpenStreetMap, but only valid ones. If you make problematical changes similar to this one again then you risk being prevented from making further edits at all.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse), on behalf of the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group.

Thanks. I notice you've done a revert in changeset/29688826 - has that patched everything up now do you think?

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I think that something went a bit wrong here - you managed to delete the intersection at Mission and 2nd. I've put it back, but it does mean that whatever you were trying to do with that change will need to be done again. Unfortunately it's not immediately obvious what that was - I can see that you added a cycleway way/329191862/history which ran from north of Howard down to it, along it for a bit and then south down an alley, but can't see exactly what change you were trying to make. If you could explain that, perhaps I or someone else might be able to help you make that change?

Best Regards, Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse).

Do you know what might have happened with changeset/29666499 (by a new user) that you're patching up here? It looks like that changeset might need reverting.

You've changed the language on node/1435363045/history (and some others) from rs to ru; How do you know the original was Russian and not Serbian (sr)?

Just in case you're not aware, there's a boundary checker here:

http://www.loach.me.uk/osm/boundaries/

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Is way/154685330 really called "A6003/A6014 Roundabout" now? It's a while since I've driven across it but I don't remember it having a name at all.

Obviously it's at the junction of those roads, but that doesn't mean that it has a name consisting of the reference numbers of those roads and the word "roundabout".

Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I notice that you've added way/334237266 , which seems to be a fun run route. Generally speaking, things added to OSM are verifiable on the ground; if this isn't, it probably doesn't belong there (although creating a map of the route using OSM data, using something like http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ , is perfectly possible) .

However, If the fun run signs do permanently exist on the ground then it arguably does belong in OSM, but you'd want to add it as a "relation" (linking together existing roads) rather than as a new OSM "way" with no information about what it is.

Did you discuss this deletion anywhere with the local OSM community before doing it? If so, where?