No problem - worth a try :-) I'll have a look the next time that I'm in Kirklington.

You didn't happen to notice the access rights on way/316544588 by any chance did you?

Where actually is the location for this business ( node/3227855882 )? I'm guessing that it's not in the middle of the road.

(oops - added to wrong changeset - sorry about that!)

Where actually is the location for this business ( node/3227855882 )? I'm guessing that it's not in the middle of the road.

Also, is there an actual physical location associated with this business? If so, that's where the node belongs, not in the middle of the road. OSM is not a business directory, so if there's no actual physical location of the business, it doesn't belong in OSM at all.

node/3226212228 appears to be an exact duplicate of node/3226200454 ?

The name here "mudeford self catering tel 01202437888" looks a bit odd - is this house really called this? I suspect not...

Also, it needs some sort of "main tag" if anyone's every going to find it. "taginfo" in the UK finds a few "self_catering", so maybe that would be appropriate:

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/tourism=self_catering

Hi,

I notice that you've added a "ref" tag to various roads including way/13781368/history southwest of Rampton. What is the source of this data? I'm reasonably familiar with the area and have never seen a "ref" signed on the ground here.

Obviously a potential concern is that some copyrighted source has been used (see osm.wiki/Copyright for some relevant links). It's good practice to add a source tag on either the OSM object or the changeset explaining where data came from. Can you give an assurance that it was from a licence-compatible source and describe which one?

(there's a whole other discussion about "how best to tag 'ref's not signed on the ground", but let's postpone that until the source is clarified).

Best Regards,

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

Sorry I didn't reply to this - unfortunately people are only subscribed automatically to changesets from the time that changeset discussions were turned on, which was 2nd November I think.

You've added way/316457496 as abandoned - is the former line really visible as it goes through Sports Direct's building and across Wood Lane? It certainly isn't visible to me.

Been a while since I've been there, but it's entirely possible that the building isn't all hotel.

node/3195846991 needs some sort of main tag - "shop=convenience" perhaps? shop=convenience

node/3193341051 could do with a main tag if people are to have a chance of finding it. Would it be an "office=charity" perhaps?

Based on the "addr:housename", I'm guessing that the former Post Office node/296016476/history has moved into the convenience store node/3190415559 ?

If so, it would help people to find that there's still a post office here by having a post office tag somewhere. Often the way people do it is by drawing the building for the convenience stored ("shop=convenience" in OpenStreetMap parlance) and having a node were the PO counter is inside the store. Also, is there still a post box here? node/667363537/history was one previously.

You've changed way/299749663/history from "tull=yes" to "toll=yes". Even without local knowledge, the merest glance at any imagery (or the layer tag) will show that what was meant here was "tunnel".

Please don't make stuff up just to make validator errors go away and please do check each change carefully - while it's fairly obvious what "wikdiata" is supposed to be, it isn't the case with some of the other changes. In some cases contacting the original mapper or adding an OSM note asking for a local survey is a far better option.

Oh - and it's nice to see that Muphry's Law applies to changeset comments too :-)

Just for info, re "filled in canals" there are a couple of options:

One is "waterway=derelict_canal" (see waterway=derelict_canal ). That is I think for canals that you can see where they are, but can't use them as a canal. Another option is "historic=canal":

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6q6

If you want to tag something as either of these in Potlatch 2 you'll need to select "advanced" and enter the tags manually. There's also a large number of people who'd agree with what you've currently done (removed a former feature that no longer exists from the map).

@davel - I'd be tempted to map the archaeological site and the trees (and anything else - fences, gates etc. as separate features). Also there needs to be some way of indicating that it's a ring of trees rather than the whole area. Would perhaps "natural=tree_row" make sense perhaps?

Also way/238919853/history now seems to incorporate a post box in the middle of the road. This is unlikely - Presumably the post box is actually to the north or south of the road?

If it would be easier, I can undo this recent change and unhook the cliff from the coastline so that you can have another go at moving it?

Hello,
I think that something's gone a bit wrong with way/28272829 - the cliff now seems to include part of the sea (I think that a couple of nodes have been dragged with the coastline).

I'm guessing that the new island alignment is correct as although the various underlying imagery sources and maps show different locations, OS OpenData StreetView is at least the most recent. Looking at the aerial imagery, I'm not quite convinced that whoever digitised it for OSSV got the shape right though.

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.