Sorry please disregard apparently my memory is failing, I even surveyed the final alignment for panoramax. I should have checked the images before i reverted. The north alignment was temopary while the road was under construction. the road now goes south again around the houses I've undone my revert now.

I've reverted this change. Please do not blindly makes changes based on out of date imagery. The road alignment has been completely altered here and a new bridge was built when the A465 was dualled.

changeset/179152526

I realize now that I've made a bit of an error and misunderstood this changeset. I thought this was a replacement of `finely_mown=yes` to `grass=finely_mown` rather than `surface=grass`. so do disregard my last comment. I still say the same that this should have been discussed before hand just go give other users a opportunity to protest before the change is executed.

(hit enter by mistake)

This is not a "blatant fix", a blatant fix would be a single letter typo. a blatant fix could even be be `house=yes` (1.7k uses) to `building=house`(65.5m uses). `finely_mown=yes`(1k uses) vs `grass=finely_mown` (2.5k uses) is a alternative tagging convention and NEEDS discussion before changing on mass. `grass=finely_mown` has even been in decline in recent years.

this is not a "blatant fix", a blatant fix would be a single letter typo. a blatant fix could even be be `house=yes` (1.7k uses) to `building=house`(65.5m uses). `finely_mown=yes`(1k uses) vs `grass=finely_mown`

i agree that it makes sense to replace `finely_mown=yes` with `grass=finely_mown` however such a automated change should have been discussed on the forums at a very minimum. This obviously goes against the osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

comment

Hello Cloudy,
Thank you for contributing to OSM. I have a few minor issues with this changeset. Please do try to avoid creating paths that don't exist in reality like near the shop on Bedwelty road, even if you believe such a fake path would be beneficial in some way. OSM only maps what is on the ground and nothing else. Please also note that "marked crossings" are used for things like zebra crossings where there are markings on the roadway. "unmarked crossing" is used for instances where the only evidence of a crossing is a lowered curb and there are no markings on the roadway. I've taken the liberty to fix both of these issues in this instance.

If you have any questions the community is more than happy to help, best places to ask are either on the forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/
or on the discord https://discord.com/invite/openstreetmap

Kind regards,
Kits

Hi there Portal,
Most, if not all, of these farmlands look more like meadows to me. Due to the uneven terrain it is very rare to see crops being grown within the Welsh Valleys. Most land is used for grazing instead.

Hi, Might be worth adding check_date to the nodes with panoramax image date. its a habit i've started to adopt with my own shop mapping.

Once again, can you please add description changeset comments? "edits" is not useful. The changeset comment field exists for a reason, please use it.

But then you cant specific differing tags like for example wall colour. A terrace might not be made up of buildings of all the same design either with differing number of floors and roof designs. it can also be argued that splitting the address and building violates the "One feature, one OSM element" principle. I suggest you have a read and possible contribute to this forum post as its discussing the wave of low quality ai imports currently happening in the UK https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/poor-quality-imports-of-microsoft-ai-buildings/139610

Hi there,
Theses building really should have been fixed before being uploaded. many of these buildings are semi-detached houses which are not easy to split for the average mapper using ID. Some of detached and semi-detached houses have been joined into long terrace-like buildings. OSM prefers quality over quantity and this is very low quality. I strongly suggest spending more time correcting the AI output going forward.

@Frans
You shouldn't rely on the alignment of Bing imagery. JOSM even gives a warning by default that Bing imagery may be misaligned. The error can become more extreme the more uneven the terrain is. There are public GPS traces in this area which suggest this road should moved by a few meters east and suggest the original mapping of these buildings was correct.

the documented China specific naming rules state that `name` should contain only the Chinese name and the tibetan name should only be in the `name:bo` tag

osm.wiki/Multilingual_names#China

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for contributing to OSM.
Just a small tip, in the online editor you can square up ways by right clicking on them and pressing the square button or by using the shortcut "Q".
Hope this is of some use.

Kind regards,
Kits

Hello Brian,
In relation to this note note/5095889
is there a reason for the `so=residential` tag added to some of the houses in this changeset or is it simply a mistake?

Kind regards,
Kits

I would like to second Mr LordGarySugar. These useless changeset comments must stop. Its gone on for far too long. You have made 4,364 changesets, 2922 of them have had either "edit" or "edits" as a changeset comment. Please start adding descriptive commends to make it clear what edits you are making.

The "substation", "pole transformer", "primary","grid" and "supergrid" postfixs are added intentionally and is a UK wide standard the uk osm power community knows about it and its contradiction to norms but at the moment nothing has be decided so I am simply maintaining the status que.

You're misunderstanding what the wiki is saying, its saying if a feature is truly unnamed, that is not known by any name to any person. this is true for many roads, some only have refs others are too minor and don't have any known name or ref at all. in these situations don't use the name=* tag and use the noname=yes tag instead.

These transformers have been named, they have one and only one name as such using any name variant other than name=* doesn't make sense.

The fact that the name is not printed on the feature is not a issue. As the same wiki page states the source of a name can be "Common or official usage". this is the same for many features like for example a forest. it may not have a sign on the ground stating the name of the forest but that doesn't make the forest unnamed since a name is simply a identifier used by a group of people to identify a particular object.