Hi!

I just wanted to ask about some of the changes you've made around Samford in this changeset. From what I gather, by "incorrect addr:suburb" you are referring to instances where an element's `addr:suburb` tag is different from the administrative boundary it falls in.

While this makes sense, for some elements I don't think it's that straightforward to remove them. Below is a list of the changes you've made the to elements around Samford and my thoughts on each. I would appreciate your input into whether the two addresses on Narrien Court should be 'Samford Village' or 'Samford Valley' and why.

- Samford Smiles, Samford => correct, should be 'Samford Village', but I don't think 'Samford' was so incorrect as to warrant removal
- Samford Valley Medical Centre, Samford => correct, should be 'Samford Village', but I don't think 'Samford' was so incorrect as to warrant removal
- 15A Narrien Court, Samford Village => dubious, I believe it should be 'Samford Village', but there is a strong argument for 'Samford Valley'
- 15B Narrien Court, Samford Village => dubious, I believe it should be 'Samford Village', but there is a strong argument for 'Samford Valley'
- 2 Camjo Court, Samford Valley => correct, should be 'Yugar'
- Samford Golden Valley Pony Club, Samford Valley => correct, should be 'Wights Mountain'

You've also removed the tags for `addr:state` and `addr:postcode` for each of these elements, which were, as far as I can tell, tagged correctly. I would also appreciate some insight into why you made these removals.

Thanks!

Hey! It was understand for a long time that this was the case too. It first came to my attention after seeing an Osmose issue mentioning it, so I looked into it further. Reading over the wiki page (amenity=fuel#How_to_map), it states that the amenity=fuel tag should be a node at or way around the fuelling area, and later goes on to say that a roof can be added as a part of the surroundings rather than part of the fuelling station. I had a look at Overpass before too, and it seemed that tagging them as the same object is fairly common, but is far more common to have the fuelling area separate from the roof. It makes more sense to me now to do it this way as the roof and fuel station aren't part of the same thing; fuel stations just almost always have a roof. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted this though, or whether there is a resolution on which way is preferred.

While reading up on the multi-polygons with buildings, I came across that type=building relation. It seemed to be more preferable when the building is complex, with a recommendation to just use a regular multi-polygon relation for simpler cases. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on which is best or preferred. I don't think this case merits construction using the type=building, so I will leave it if the OSM inspector is happy with multi-polygon. Thank you once again for your help and letting me know of the issue.

Hey! Thank you for letting me know. You are completely right; I am not up to speed with creating multi-polygons. I was following this wiki page building:part=*#How_to_use and I completely misunderstood what the page was conveying. I've read though your linked wiki page, and others relating to mapping complex areas, and I've reconstructed the building in hopes of correcting this. If you could let me know if I have done so correctly, or if changes still need to be made, I would be most appreciative changeset/139963990

You seem a lot more experienced than I am when it comes to larger mapping changes like that so if you could that would be great. I found that power pole and I've just added it in. Also, thank you for the cutline tag, I had no idea that's what it was called.

Hey! Thank you for this correction. When I visited, all I could see was the reserve and I was unaware of this. Do you know of an appropriate land use tag for areas like this?

Hey! Thanks for letting me know. And yeah, it seems to be that, I didn't realise when I mapped it. I just edited it so hopefully it's corrected now. Thank you!

Hey! Much appreciated for reaching out. I believe that's coming up because part of the multipolygon I used for the roof relation runs along itself where the roof have no width. I'm currently out but when I have time I'll split it up into multiple which will hopefully fix the issue. Thanks!