hi, there's something going on with the UPRNs at this property: way/268784271
None of the attributed UPRNs return a result on the findmyaddress service. Might they be out of date since the new owner submitted new addresses? Is that possible?

Hi Bernard,

Thanks for the heads-up. I very much struggled with clearing the 'errors' related to these multilevel plans in JOSM. I've not found a good example to follow for creating indoor routing over several levels (not layers).
A mapper prior to me used laterally-staggered `highway=footway`s to overcome the issue but I found that to be really messy and not scalable to multilevel buildings so have partially ignored the errors such as those highlighted by geofabrik for being false positives where the `level=` tag is present.
If you've got some good practice examples for me to follow and improve from, I'd be immensely grateful to see them!

Hi, Rachel,
You're right to be disappointed that the change has been made without consulting you, however it is the right action to take as there is a strong likelihood that the data you've added it the map is subject to copyright and therefore doesn't meet OSM terms of use for contributors.
You're right that data added which does meet those terms is then subsequently available for OSM users (i.e anyone who uses OSM to analyse the FWMC catchment in this case). If you want to continue to use OSM to hold the catchment boundary you'll need to get in touch with the copyright holder and request permission from them to release the licence so that it's compatible with the OSM licence.
A template letter of such a request can be found here: https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
In the future, best practice is to list the source of the data you add to OSM within the changeset comments using the tag osm.wiki/Tag:'source='
I hope that clears things up for you

Hi, and welcome to the OSM community. Can you share where this boundary data is from and clarify whether it is subject to any copyright?
Thanks

OK, it's the first time I've looked at names, and I felt, similarly to you, that it was backwards.

As for the boundaries themselves, the first link shows land ownership, so it would only be appropriate to import that data into OSM if you've got evidence that access is directly linked to ownership. Is that the case?
What seems to be clear though, is that it's not a `leisure=nature_reserve`, and would likely be best represented by updating the existing `natural=forest` polygons into an MP with the appropriate access and operator tags added. Much as:
relation/3155570 or relation/1849496

Hi,
What exactly are you trying to map here? The land ownership, or everything that is publicly accessible? If it's the former, I don't know that it has a place on the OSM database, unless you wanted to highlight natural areas managed by 'operator=Natural Resources Wales': https://datamap.gov.wales/layers/inspire-nrw:NRW_FOREST_LEGAL_BOUND.

If it's the latter then an mp-relation with suitable access tags might be more appropriate.
Either way, I can't see any evidence that it's a nature reserve:
https://datamap.gov.wales/layers/inspire-nrw:NRW_LNR or
https://datamap.gov.wales/layers/geonode:nrw_nnr_declarations
and it'd be worth following the local language, i.e: 'name=Parc Coedwig Afan' , 'name:en=Afan Forest Park'

typo now fixed, thanks.

Hi 1LM, Could you take care to get familiar with the highways=* and access=* schema when making changes to these bus gate / LTN changes that you're evidently interested in. This access restriction you've attempted to map is already adequately mapped as access restrictions in the correct place immediately North of Glendare St. It also strikes me that you may be using data sources that are incompatible with the OSM ODb license as Bing has not updated their imagery for this area to show the access restrictions.
On a final point, please be aware that edits to highways in many places around the world will have relations dependent upon them and will need checking after any changes. For example, here you have broken the bus route 16 with these edits. I have taken the liberty of reverting this changeset for all of these reasons above. Do please reply if you feel there might be changes you feel are valid which might be implemented another way.

That's fine - thanks. I'm looking to focus on water infrastructure and hoping that there might be some crossover, but I guess gas is that much better signed for safety. Still, the geograph tip was a good reminder to have a look there occasionally - thanks.

Hi, how are you mapping these underground features? It's something I could be interested in pursuing myself but unsure about how to source the information.

I've since had a look around other towns and found plenty of examples where it's mapped as you've done it. The difference is that generally (not always) only one object is named. Removing the name from the area feels like the right solution in this situation where the linear characteristic is slightly more important than the area (i.e it still feels more like a thoroughfare than a square). I think the Broadmead ways would benefit from the same treatment although not sure whether to tag the way or area in that case.

Absolutely, so storing the vehicles is secondary to all that, then. =depot reads as if it's the overnight parking for a privately-operated public transport co.

I understand what you might have intended, but probably more accurate to tag as: amenity=parking, parking=surface, restriction=loading_only, access=private (or =customers if suitable)

I'm guessing the cycle parking was a mis-click or some other mistake?

node/13062236501#map=19/51.452530/-2.584030

Hi, these sections before the bridge aren't busways as is currently described in the wiki: highway=busway as they're partly accessible to cyclists, and the guided way only starts on the bridge.

I guess that would have been me - thanks for tidying up!

Yup, looking good to me 👌

You might have missed a bit of quality control here - just because it's a shop=* doesn't mean it has to have a building=* tag. The same goes for your other 6 recent changesets within Meadowhall

Agreed, have submitted a report this evening.

Are cyclists permitted to go the other direction here?:
way/152262096