Hi gurglypipe,

Thank you for the question. To put my edit in context, Royal Mail originally installed Business Boxes, that we tagged in OSM as post_box:type=meter. Over the years, those Business Boxes have generally transitioned to Parcel Boxes and the transition included adding a "P" to the reference number on the collection plate. The wiki documentation for post_box:type outlines how we should re-tag these boxes. In the case of this particular box, some re-tagging had already been done. I'm just completing that re-tagging to bring the tagging scheme in line with the current post_box:type documentation.

Yes, I have assumed that the crown displayed on the Parcel Boxes should be tagged as royal_cypher=crown. If we are saying that is an invalid assumption then I'm happy to re-tag the boxes as royal_cypher=no.

Thanks for the feedback but I am sure that Parcel Boxes (boxes that have transitioned from Business/Meter Boxes) do have a crown on them as part of the signage on the front and on the sides. There is the brand "Royal Mail" displayed horizontally with a crown above it, set on a white band that runs behind the brand name. You're right that crown isn't listed as one of the values for royal_cypher=*. I hadn't noticed that before. Perhaps that is an oversight that should be amended. I have been using royal_cypher=crown on the basis that it is a valid value in the dropdown for setting the royal_cypher tag in iD. It is also listed as a valid value for royal_cypher in Robert's OSM Postbox Royal Cypher Report (https://osm.mathmos.net/postboxes/osm-royal-cypher.html).

Thank you for taking and uploading the pictures. That appears to be box GL53 148. That box is a Type B box that has been converted to accept parcels. The pictures are useful to confirm that it is correctly tagged (post_box:design=digital_type_b). Unfortunately, the pictures don't help to confirm whether boxes GL50 380 and GL51 369 are tagged correctly, because they were not originally Type A or Type B boxes. I think GL50 380 and GL51 369 are either Meter Postboxes that have been transitioned to Parcel Postboxes (post_box:design=parcel) or they are new Digital Drop Boxes (post_box:design=digital_drop_box).

Thank you for the confirmation, It sounds like we might have a variant of this design, because it is highly unusual for this design of Parcel Postbox to have a solar panel. According to the images of the boxes that I have found, they have been Parcel Postboxes for 4-5 years, and they haven’t had solar panels on them for most of that time. As you have actually seen the solar panels then they must have been installed recently. I wonder what the solar panels are powering. Did you notice whether there has been a barcode scanner installed as well? That would be a reason for the solar panels to be installed. Any further information you can obtain about the powered characteristics of these boxes would be useful, so that we can improve the wiki information on the tagging of these boxes.

Thank you for the response. I am familiar with the post_box:type=* guidance. I have edited much of it, in relation to the various parcel box designs. The guidance says that the Type A and Type B boxes, that have been converted to accept parcels, have solar panels. The new large eight-sided parcel boxes (first one installed in Belfast to replace a Type K box in April) also have solar panels. The traditional meter boxes, that have transitioned to become parcel boxes, do not have solar panels. I think we should add a fixme to the boxes in question to try to get another mapper to survey them and confirm whether or not they have solar panels.

It was a while ago, but if I remember correctly, addr:place was removed automatically by iD when I entered addr:street. I believe there is guidance that says it is undesirable to have both addr:place and addr:street in the same address, and so I assume that iD is implementing that guidance. I think at the time I noticed it and I also noticed that the buildings are within a residential area that has Old Kingshold Estate as its name. So, it seemed to me that we haven’t lost anything by removing addr:place from the building addresses.

Hi samon53, I notice that you have tagged post boxes GL50 380P and GL51 369 with electricity=solar. Do these boxes really have solar panels on them? The vast majority of the legacy meter boxes that have become Parcel Boxes are not solar powered. If these two boxes are not solar powered then I suggest removing the tag.

Welcome to OSM Parkmoto. I have noticed that in some of your changesets you have used addr:postcode=* on motorcycle bays. For UK mapping, addr:postcode=* is normally only used on objects that can receive post, e.g. residential premises, commercial premises, etc. If a postcode needs to be specified for an object that can’t receive post, such as a phone box, a street or a motorcycle bay, then it should normally be mapped using postal_code=*.

Yes, I read the note at the time. In fact, I referenced the note in the fixme. The purpose of the fixme was to request that the box was resurveyed, in the hope of a new collection plate with the correct ref being installed in the future.

Hi spiregrain,

It's true that the postbox in this changeset has gone, but it has been relocated further along Upton Lane. I have re-established it here:

node/12954700670

I agree. I’d prefer it if post boxes didn’t have names in OSM. This change was to reformat the name that a previous mapper had already set on the post box, to conform with the other mixed-case names that exist.

https://osm.mathmos.net/postboxes/osm-name.html

I understand your point and I agree to a certain extent. I suppose the real question is, what is the meaning of the network tag in a network relation? Your point of view is that, in this case, it should refer to the over-arching network. That is a reasonable point of view, although it raises the further question of what the network tag should be in a network relation that doesn’t have a higher level network, for example London Underground. I suppose it could be omitted in that case, for consistency. I don’t have any objection if you want to change it, but it might be worth doing nothing until the naming of the London Overground lines come into effect later this year. I suspect that, when that happens, there will be a de-emphasis on the London Overground name and the mapping community might propose that the whole London Overground relation hierarchy is tagged with network=National Rail.

Thanks for your question. There was a debate a few months ago amongst other mappers over whether the network tag for the London Overground lines should be London Overground or National Rail. A similar debate took place for the Elizabeth line. The outcome of the London Overground debate resulted in the route master and route relations network tags being set to London Overground (by other mappers), although it is interesting to note that the debate over the Elizabeth line went the other way. The rationale for my changeset is to simply set the network tag in the London Overground network relation to match the network tag in the child route master and route relations, for consistency. So, should the same rationale apply to the network tag in the network relation of the other rail lines in the UK? Yes, I think it should, but presumably they are already set to National Rail, as their child route master and route relations are presumably also set to National Rail.

At the time, it looked like a school site that was being redeveloped for residential use (although the imagery may have been a bit out of date). I think it is probably now completed for residential use, and so the area can be reclassified as residential, and the addr: tags can be moved from the area to the building(s).

Thank you for the comments. I have found that PO Box addresses are not often mapped in OSM, but when they are mapped, they invariably exist at the delivery point. It seems wrong and misleading to use addr: to map a PO Box Address at a location that isn’t the delivery point (in this case mapping a Gloucester delivery point in Cheltenham). Also, in this particular case, the postcode of GL1 2XG appears to be an invalid postcode, albeit the court advertises this postcode as part of its PO Box address. However, I take your point about map users possibly viewing this node and not appreciating that the court has advertised a PO Box address for its address to receive post. So, I have revised the note tag to orient it towards map users and to echo the PO Box address, albeit I still think the postcode is wrong.

Hi,
Are you sure about the postcode change from CF14 5DU to CF14 5YP for Marks & Spencer in this changeset? I can see that CF14 5DU is the postcode specified on the M&S web site but it is not in Code Point Open and it appears to be a postcode that was made obsolete in 2002. M&S is using CF14 5YP in its FHRS entry. So, I think the M&S web site might be wrong. For those reasons, I think the correct postcode is CF14 5DU. Could you please have a look at this again to see if the postcode in OSM should be changed back to CF14 5DU. Thanks.

Postcode BA2 4AB was made obsolete in 2020. The hotel has probably not changed its web site and FHRS entry yet. I have seen this type of thing happen quite often, where Royal Mail re-assigns a different postcode to an address but the organisation continues to publicise the old postcode, sometimes for many years.

I removed BA2 2QL because it's an obsolete postcode. I couldn't determine an alternative and that suggests to me that the entities that had that postcode are probably disused.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I have noticed that the two postcodes that you added to 10 Park Drive were already there (before your edits, addr:postcode=E14 9GD;E14 9JX;E14 9QY;E14 9ZW). I think the editor might have misled you into thinking that some postcodes were missing, because the display tends to only show a portion of a multi-valued postcode field. I have removed the duplicate postcodes. I hope this false start doesn’t put you off from making further edits to this and other OpenStreetMap elements in the future. Regards Mike