That was a mistake, I will delete that tag. I only edited the power poles to correct spelling from "Ravenhills" to "Ravenshill". Thanks for catching it

Source should be survey, not local knowledge

Hello! How confident are you that cycleway is oneway? I was in the area yesterday, and didn't see any signage on the underpass. Thanks!

Hello, I didn't, that's still in use for access to that side of the pontoon from memory

Borehole data is available as part of this OGL dataset https://www.bgs.ac.uk/technologies/web-map-services-wms/geoindex-wms-services/

Excellent question (and excellent username!)

Carter Ground is no longer a working farm, so I decided to verify the age of the buildings using Victorian OS mapping. See here: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/swipe/#zoom=18.0&lat=54.3212&lon=-3.1868&layers=6&right=osm

This confirms the buildings are indeed old farm structures, and I'm content they would have originally been barns based on their physical appearance. It also confirms the walls to the north were originally another building.

I'll follow your suggestions now. Thanks very much!

Great point, updated accordingly. Thanks!

This is signposted on the ground as a footway only. Additionally, there are two rules broken here:
1. DON'T COPY FROM OTHER MAPS
2. name=* tag is for the footpath name (e.g. "Daisy Lane"), not a description of the changeset
Accordingly I'm going to go ahead and delete this path.

This one was on my to-do list, nice work! Thanks

Morning, this breaks the rendering on e.g. OpenRiverboatMap, I was given to understand that motorboat= is a larger vessel (like a canal boat) and boat= might just be an open dinghy. The motorboat= tag is present on 39k ways according to TagInfo, what's the appropriate scenario for its use? Thanks!

Non existent? The fact that they're private doesn't mean they don't exist. What is your source, please?

Hello, thank you for your edits! However, it's hard for computers to interpret descriptions in names, so it's good practice to leave them out:
osm.wiki/Names
"Descriptive text, alphanumeric IDs, advertising slogans and similar items should not be included in names."
For example, here we'll just set tags name=Warren Drive and access=private.
Much appreciated, cheers

That's news to me, apologies. I don't understand the distinction

I was about to direct you to the StreetComplete issue tracker, but I see you've already done so https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/5592 Thank you for your diligence on this.

Hello, only just seen this; I fear I've just undone your work again, certainly not my intention to get into an edit war. Please accept my apologies.

That said, is this really common practice on UK waterways? OSM wiki suggests not:

>The tag is also used to indicate if a river is practically navigable or not for boats, however, this is ambiguous, as it does not provide any information about the boat types for which this is valid. Access limitations can however also be constituted by legislation which might refer to on-the-ground factors factors such as date, water level, or damage to the surroundings caused by using the waterway.

I can certainly think of situations and routes where one might tag boat=yes, motorboat=no (for example, a dinghy with outboard motor can manage, but a narrowboat or widebeam cruiser isn't maneuverable enough - such as the River Severn east and west channels above the Lower Parting through Gloucester, which has a legal right of navigation, but is a bit overgrown due to low use).

Welcome your thoughts. Thank you!

motor_vehicle=yes on Shore Road is a mistake, no? It's permanently pedestrianised now, all year round. I'll change back

Hello, is the street name really Calle Peligro? Thank you!

In contravening this, you're overwriting years of work by others and making the map noticeably worse for vulnerable road users, who are looking for traffic-free routes.

I'm not making any of this up, it's years of established best practice. osm.wiki/Further_guidance_on_tagging_Public_Rights_of_Way_in_the_United_Kingdom#Access_conditions

"

When adding access=* tags to a highway that is also a PRoW you should only add the tags granted to that highway by the PRoW status – unless other legal access restrictions are verifiably known. In our public footpath and service road example, the following is correct if we know nothing else about any other legal access restrictions on the road:

highway=service
foot=designated (this is the only access tag we are certain of)
designation=public_footpath
prow_ref=*

You should not assume that access is, or is not, permitted by other transport modes. It may not even be possible to determine this from a ground survey.

Although the legal access may not be explicitly covered by the PRoW type, other transport modes may still be allowed. For example, cyclists may still be allowed on a public footpath."

*that should of course say foot=designated