Just for info, the person that created the duplicate here also changed the district boundary - see note/282082

I noticed the implausible and mis-spelt name ("Aqueuct") on way/154164027 , but then noticed the changeset discussion comment above. Would this perhaps be better reverted and the none-duplicate names reapplied where appropriate?

See changeset/27277821

Unfortunately Google's licence terms don't allow data from Google Street View (or other Google products) to be added to OpenStreetMap. There's some information that might help here: osm.wiki/Google#Why_not_Google.3F

You need to actually walk past to see if it is still there.

Hello,

Do you need any help mapping here? way/315750413 has no tags at all on it and way/315319370 is a primary road which seems unlikely in this part of Nepal. If you're just testing things out I'd suggest that you use the "dev" server instead http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org .

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend

Any reason why you've removed name:sr from Prishtinë node/2885136501 ? I'd have thought it was still a relevant language to have a name in (in addition to the other language names still present).

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

That's the main reason why I try not to edit things far from home :-)

Still, add a note and I'm sure that someone will be able to investigate.

In this particular case I'd add a map note rather than changing anything, since it's not really clear what was mapped in the first place.

Someone will either know the area or will be surveying locally and will be able to check. It might even be me (I've done some footpaths just east of here).

You've edited node/1670988020/history , which was previously "name=Playground; "power=station". Can you confirm that it really is an electricity substation and not a playground? The imagery isn't clear, but it looks more like the former than the latter.

I'm not sure what's happened here - you seem to have set "leaf_type=needleleaved" on a "historic=archaeological_site". What suggested to you that this change would be a good idea?

Perhaps it's actually a mechanical edit that should really have been discussed as per osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy before the changes were actually made?

@edvac that explains it - you fixed a number of river nodes in changeset/27163606 , then 4 hours later I deleted the one remaining unconnected node (which wasn't part of the river)

@edvac Which "duplicated node in that null island" did you delete?

@edvac: The only new node in this changeset was the one at "null island" that I deleted. The problem that caused the river to appear in the Central African Republic was a series of node moves - see for example node/2425119344/history . Node moves don't change the history of a way as viewed on the OSM (though the Potlatch2 editor at least displays a "consolidated history" view that includes both node and way changes; not sure what other editors can show).

HI - I think that something went a bit wrong here. This node:

node/245655162

got dragged to the east by accident. I've moved it back.

Anyway - hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to help. If you have any questions please feel free to drop me a message.

This changeset contains 15 pages of road classification changes (mostly from unclassified to tertiary). Either you've done an awful lot of surveying around Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire during the last 20 days, or you're guessing.

To walkers and cyclists, classification of roads between unclassified and tertiary really does matter. All other things being equal I'd be quite happy to walk down the typical OSM "unclassified" road, but not the typical "tertiary". Taking just one as an example,

way/111662014/history

is an unclassified road that I'd be more than happy to walk down (and have done so many times).

Obviously there are edge cases, and with them there can be arguments on both side, but these have to be backed up by survey. I'm sure that everyone would welcome a discussion about whether a particular road might justify a status different to what previous mappers have chosen, but you can't just say "I think that all of these roads in this area are tertiary" and change them - OSM is a collaborative project, and we have to work together to create "the best map".

Matlock Bus station - I notice that you've added a way way/228887996 for the area of the "new" bus station. There was already node/252741172 which had a name of "Matlock Bus Station". I'd delete that node and move the name to the new one that you've added, since it adds more data than was there before. Otherwise, people extracting the data will think that Matlock has one more bus station that it really has.

Of course this is somewhat confused by the fact that Matlock also has (orhad, the last time I got a bus from there) node/252741212 . Is that still in use, and if so do you know if there is any "official" different naming used to refer to each one?

Oops - I think that something went a bit wrong here. There were a couple of stray nodes at lat=0, lon=0 in this changeset (I've deleted them - hope you don't mind).

Hello - I think something went a bit wrong here - this changeset added "landuse=residential to a very large area relation/1332191 . What was the thing that you were trying to add it to?

Looking at the tags on it, node/2648431769/history doesn't look right. If it's "Open 2016" it shouldn't really be a tourism=zoo (since it isn't one yet). Perhaps some sort of "construction" tag would be better?

Hi - just spotted you've added
way/313601441 with a changeset comment of "Added pedestrian access between two streets.". In order for routers to be able to send pedestrians from one road to another it'll need to have a node joining the road at the north and a node joining the road at the south.

Anyway - hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to help. If you have any questions please feel free to drop me a mail.

Cheers, Andy