btw some years ago I used to add nodes on top of buildings like you did as there were loads of them around (and still are) and I generally try to copy how things have been done. That generally happens because the node came first but then at some point someone drew the building but didn't merge the two. Bit by bit they get merged. I found it impossible to know what "preferred standard" was but generally found out when people posted helpful (ahem) comments on my changes like I did : )

Thanks for getting back to me. I've added the tags back to your building.

Refining buildings is a common activity and the easiest way is to add more nodes to the existing way. If you're using iD then double-click on the middle of any edge and an extra node will appear that you can drag around. Add as many nodes as needed to add the extra bits of the building. That's generally preferred to making a new building to replace the old and adding the tags again as that loses the history.

As you get a bit more used to editing then you might prefer to switch to josm or potlatch2 (if you're not already!) as they allow various more powerful things via shortcuts.

Hope that helps!

Can I ask why you've removed the tags from the church and created a node over the top with the same tags on? In OSM the standard is single-use buildings should be tagged on the building with ways preferred to nodes. Your change makes this church different to pretty much every other Anglican church in the country.

Thanks for adding the tags to St Mary's church. The denomination should be anglican, though -- all 16000 churches of the Church of England have that tag. If you want to mark it as evangelical then that's better put as a subdenomination.

Good spot, thanks. The hazards of editing lots of churches repetitively!

Their website doesn't give any help and just talk about the new "St Peter & St David Church Centre", so I'd well believe they've been merged somewhere. I'll leave it for the moment but feel free to amend/delete if you discover more.

Actually, what's this building?
https://tinyurl.com/y4m7re6w

Oops. It's still on both OS OpenData StreetView and https://www.achurchnearyou.com/church/19715/ , but thanks for letting me know. I'll remove it again.

Thanks for your helpful, encouraging and not at all patronizing response. I see you've effaced the entire area by labelling it as "mixed, mainly retail" which is patently false given Liskeard is 90%+ residential. Standard practice for urban areas is to tag the majority use, with smaller sub-areas overlaid, or inserted where appropriate. Could you please take that approach instead of changing to an invalid tag value.

You're right, thanks. I've changed it to drain. It's odd that it connects to the remaining part of the canal though so is it to drain that or was it originally part of it? Just musing -- ignore my question! One real question though, how should the parts of the canal that are still there be tagged differently to those that are entirely effaced, as happens exactly where my way joins the former canal?

Ahem, I mean Lincolnshire. My county knowledge is pretty good, I promise : )

Hi Andy,
I had been to Norfolk back then but I think most of my change was landuse improvements based on Bing maps tracing. I certainly didn't add the source as Google Maps as I know we can't use that, so it was whoever added it originally that put that. I suspect I converted an existing node with the name to the current way based on Bing, but don't know about the name. I agree it looks like whoever put it originally got the name from Google Maps so do remove.

I know, you're right. 95% of the time I do add a comment, but I've been editing dozens of churches where (usually) the only change is adding the denomination and adding a comment takes longer than the change itself! The Monkleigh change was unusual in that I did the residential area too, so probably should have, but I was on a roll...

Hi again. The responses I had from Talk-GB agree with me. The coastline should follow the MHW which seems most accurate on OS OpenData StreetView. I'll improve it at some point, but either way it seems clear that the 'island' should be marked as something other than coastline.

Hi. My changes weren't really anything to do with the coastline, being just a decision on whether county boundaries should follow high- or low- water levels.

But to answer your question I would argue the following:
i) The main coastline in this area is inaccurate, and should really follow the Mean High Water level.
ii) The MHW on OS OpenData StreetView runs around the 'island' to the north...
iii) ...but the 'coastline' on OS LandRanger maps (which should also be the MHW) runs well to the south of the 'island'.

So I'm confused. I think it's clear that the main coastline needs refining, but it's not clear where to. I might post on OSM-UK to gather opinions.

>95% of the boundaries follow present-day admin boundaries so I use those existing ways. I've been following the ABC's definition which are those on wikishire. I could have taken a dump of wikishire and imported it but that would have duplicated those 95%+ (and the rest largely follow rivers), so I've been adding the relations to existing ways so it's simple to determine where the traditional boundaries DON'T follow existing admin boundaries, as that's where the interest lies.

I agree I need to settle on a single coastline paradigm. I'll have a think.

Hi Colin. I've oscillated between the two, and am not really happy with either the coastline or low water line. In the end I went with the one to mirror the traditional boundaries on http://communities.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Compare/storytelling_compare/index.html?appid=7b0e661ef66b4a7aacb5a9acf55108ac , and https://wikishire.co.uk/map/ (though not till I'd done the whole of the south coast!). It was the fact that the Wirral and Wash just looked all 'wrong' in outline, as every county map I've seen stops at the coastline. But I'm happy to take advice here. Doesn't part of it come down to whether the traditional counties are administrative or not, which everyone seems to agree they're not?

Years ago when I wasn't so familiar with OSM, I tended to copy however things were done in a particular area, and someone had done dozens with both a node and a way. Now, having been told off by others, I go round doing exactly what you say and transferring the tags to the building!

Hi Will,
I didn't have chance to finish the whole of the traditional border today; I'll try to tomorrow. (I started with duplicating the ceremonial border and am editing the parts that have been altered with modern boundary legislation. The edits I'm doing are as to recreate the traditional borders as accurately as possible (ie probably within 10m), using First Edition OS maps where needed. As you can see from https://bit.ly/1hv6ZL5 (somewhat less accurate than the OS maps) 'ceremonial' Nottinghamshire deviates far less from the traditional boundaries than most other counties. The primary reason that the traditional counties persist today is that they aren't changed by the modern boundary tinkering but reflect how they were for the centuries before. I'll correct Ilkeston (and the rest of the Erewash wiggles) as soon as I get chance.

(Re: adding tags to both ways and relations) Are you talking about the boundary=historic on the way? -- every admin boundary has boundary=administrative in both the way and relation. I'm fine to leave those off the way, but isn't the standard to put an indicative tag on the way so potlatch, etc make it clear what it is?