Hello,
I've removed highway=bus_stop from node/9953084903/history , as it's actually the "PTv2 stop position" and the actual bus stop is actually there as node/972310424/history .
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/public-transit-stop-vs-point/140924 has a bit more about this sort of thing.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,

Andy from the DWG here. Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems here that have caused one of the locals to contact us. For reference I'm using http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=177490636 to see "before and after" of this change.

One issue that I can see with it is the deletion of way/1184613232/history . I added that back in 2023 as someone had been trying to create a "path" from the driveway to the nature reserve by knocking a hole in the wall at osm.org/#map=20/55.8952239/-4.6184957 . You've deleted that line saying "there is not a path here", and there is now nothing to indicate that there is definitely NOT a path there. There have been attempts to make changes in this area via "feedback" to commercial remote OSM editors, and those remote editors' verification of information received is sometimes not great.

The other is that the change in geometry of way/1171570694 is incorrect. There's a kink in the driveway at osm.org/#map=18/55.896171/-4.617857 that isn't very clear on all aerial imagery (though if you look you can see it on various Esri imagery). This was very clear on a series of photographs that the DWG were provided with by one of the driveway residents back in 2023.

A third change (of way/1171577228/history from gravel service road to track) is arguably also incorrect - there's no agricultural access here; it's just access to private properties, although this other usage of "track" is not unknown in OSM.

Also, apparently elsewhere in Kilmacolm you've added 30mph limits where they are actually 20. We haven't been provided with a specific example of a problem but I suspect that way/91006628/history may be one. We have been provided with https://www.inverclyde.gov.uk/environment/roads-lighting/rollout-of-20mph-speed-limits#:~:text=The%20speed%20limit%20on%20most,follows%20a%20comprehensive%20analysis%20of as a link to the policy.

My apologies if this reads like a list of problems when all you've been trying to do is to improve the map locally (including adding things like way/1468857032/history which were just not there before), but the issue with the driveway has been the subject of a series of legal issues.

Something that might help is to look at the history of objects and previous changesets and comments. For example, if you look at way/1171577228/history you can see I've added information not just to my changeset comments but also in detail as discussion comments too.

Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

PS: If you'd like to contact the DWG directly about this ticket you can email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2026010810000309] changeset/177490636".

¿qué?

Thanks - fixing this restored 1 Anglican parish, 8 townlands, 3 civil parishes, 2 baronies, and 2 counties!

Very little in OpenStreetMap is "strictly forbidden". However, it is a collaborative project - we need to work together to create the best map. If one person is doing something that other people find really annoying, it is common courtesy to stop.

Kysymyksestä maankäytön liimaamisesta teihin, mielestäni useimmat kartoittajat nykyään yrittäisivät olla tekemättä sitä. Myös landuse=residential#Separation_from_roads sanoo: "Maankäytön liimaamista tieviivoihin ei suositella. Liimattu maankäyttö tekee datan kanssa työskentelystä paljon vaikeampaa. On parempi, että maankäytön raja päättyy tien reunaan, ajoradan reunaan tai että se menee kokonaan päällekkäin tien kanssa, jos sama maankäyttö jatkuu toisella puolella."

On the question of gluing landuse to roads, I think most mappers nowadays would try not to do it. Also, landuse=residential#Separation_from_roads says "It is strongly discouraged to glue landuse to road lines. Glued landuse makes the data much harder to work with. It is better to have the landuse boundary stop at the edge of the road, the edge of right of way, or overlap the road completely if the same landuse continues on the other side. "

There isn't really such a thing as "access=agricultural" in England and Wales. Sometimes access along lanes like this will be private, and sometimes people keeping sheep will rent fields off each other , but their access doesn't make it "not private". Sometimes there may be permissive foot or horse access and sometimes (though not here) a legal right of way.
Here there may also be some sort of fishing access to the Nidd?
When the weather improves a bit and I do the next bit of Nidderdale Way I might get chance to have a look :)

Blocked in osm.org/user_blocks/19496 and reverted in changeset/177373210 .

The "name:th-Latn" is a version of a Thai actual name - I wouldn't expect it to be easy to pronounce by an English speaker., the same way a French person might struggle with "Hampsthwaite" or an English person with "Fermanagh".
The problem with any "made up name for OSM" (regardless of where from) is that it's made up.

Brilliant, thanks!
Just checking - no brackets around the 66 implying "on the way to"?

Thanks - is it actually a "public_footpath" in IoM terms too? The corresponding bit of access track isn't: way/60545840

Yes, I commented on the original changeset to give them a chance to comment. These names were spotted as part of a DWG ticket where someone spotted a large number of other imported names (now deleted).
If no reply, we can remove the name and redact.

Hello,
Not sure how it happened, but I suspect that node/13147807436 is a duplicate of node/12857301617 (with a bit more info)?

Please don't use ChatGPT to make up English names for e.g. node/7252225925/history . If something doesn't have a name in English; that's OK - we don't need to invent one for OSM. If anyone wants to translate or transliterate an actual name they're entirely at liberty to do that.
(linked from https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/grokipedia-usage/140596/4 )

Thanks for tidying this up. I'm guessing that the short section at relation/11237#map=20/53.7511319/-2.1480591 should no longer be in NCN68 either?
I've also added a fixme to node/12084029747 (which I added a year ago) because it looks suspicious.

Just checking - is way/1467626781/history really part of the Millennium Way? It looks like it just goes into a field?

Hello,
I'm a bit surprised by the "vehicle=agricultural" tag on way/948841343/history . That suggests that anyone can use the track "for agricultural purposes". What's far more likely is that it is just private?
Best Regards.
Andy

Hello,
The gate at node/8988179995/history seems a bit confused. It has "locked=yes;no" and "width=3.65;1.05".
If there are two gates, I'd map them separately.
Best Regards,
Andy

Looking at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/302714101 , that was previously a stream and then changed to river with a comment of "Various additions and fixes". It was then changed back to stream with a changeset comment of "Modified features". Neither of those comments explain what criteria were used for tagging Lucas Creek one way or the other.

It's intermittent. The imagery looks like it was taken when it was fairly dry. Given the location I'd expect it to be fairly dry most of the time but occasionally very wet indeed.

I suggested elsewhere discussing these edits in the US forum to get a wider consensus,