Making this change is incorrect - if the road is signed as an A road, it's an A road. By changing the road to a motorway, you are implying that certain traffic types cannot be routed here, for example learner drivers, when in reality they are allowed to drive along this road. Maxspeed should also reflect the signage on the ground, not whatever historic document you are citing.

This is very silly, if a stretch of road has 30mph speed limit signs, how can you change it to 50mph??? osm.wiki/Ground_truth

How long is the road closed for? We don't map temporary (less than 6 months) closures, as people often forget to remove the access restriction once the road has reopened. There's also no note or anything on the way you tagged access=destination, meaning someone that sees that is going to immediately think it's an error and remove it. Thanks.

Hey, I've corrected the buildings here as they didn't match very well with reality. You can use OSMUK cadastral parcels to see where the terraced houses should be split. Also, building=house + house=terrace should be used instead of building=terrace for individual houses. Thanks.

Hey, just a note to say I've corrected a few housenames in your previous changesets - where a building has a name, you should use addr:housename= instead of osm.wiki/Tag:name=.
Secondly, where a bridge has a name, you should not change the name of the road. Instead, add bridge:name=Lesson's Bridge to the section of Colley Lane that is a bridge. If there is a man_made=bridge area drawn, you can add name=Lesson's Bridge to that too. Thanks :)

Hi, I noticed you've been mapping a lot of landuse and wanted to query your classification of farmland here - the wiki states that landuse=meadow should be used for land where grass is grown for the purposes of making hay or for grazing animals. It's clear from aerial imagery that ways such as way/1469315411 are being used for grazing horses or other animals, not ploughed and used for growing crops. Currently the usage of landuse=farmland and landuse=meadow across the UK is very inconsistent, so I'm trying to ensure the tagging is more lined up with the wiki guidance. Thanks.

Why was it necessary to remove all the buildings that were added? This seems a bit heavy-handed when the problem is with the uprn and postcode imports, not the actual building geometry. Would it be acceptable to do a partial revert to replace the buildings, without any uprn or postcode tags?

I've cleaned up all the buildings here, including removing the tags that were incorrectly copied from existing buildings, namely ref:GB:uprn= , addr:postcode= & addr:street= .

Hi, please take more care when tracing buildings. Some things that you can do to improve:
- don't add 'House' in the name field, this is incorrect.
- use 'Q' to square buildings. They will look better and be more accurate.
- make sure that connected buildings are actually connected, for example way/1489464192 is a semidetached house, so it should share a wall with the neighbouring house.

If you have any questions or need any help, feel free to ask!

Hi, just a note to say you shouldn't add footpath numbers in 'ref' - prow_ref= is the only place this information should be recorded. See osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_Rights_of_Way. ref= should be left blank for the vast majority of ways that are public footpaths. Thanks :)

I mean for example this building, where it is only partially covered by building parts now way/921508463. In some 3D renderers, the left hand side of the building will not be rendered, because it is not covered by a building part.

I think you are misinterpreting the part of the wiki that you quoted - it says that you should use the tag building:part=yes for building parts that have the same function as the surrounding building, so in this case building=apartments and the parts within are tagged building:part=yes. It does not say that if the attributes of a part of the building are the same as the surrounding building that no building part is necessary.

The wiki page should make it clear that the whole footprint of a building should be covered with building parts, according to the Simple 3D Buildings schema. I will try to get someone to update the German page. The English page says this:

"Common mistakes:
Missing parts: If a building's parts cover only part of the building outline, the remainder of the building may not be visible in a standard-compliant 3D renderer."

Hopefully that is clear. Fröhliche Mappierung!

Hey, it's not correct to delete these building parts here. As part of the simple 3D buildings schema, a building polygon needs to be completely covered by building parts, even if those building parts have the same building:levels tagged as the surrounding building. So for example way/946524532 wasn't unecessary or duplicative, but is required for representing the building correctly in 3D. You should also not remove tags like roof:shape and building:colour from building parts where they are the same as the surrounding building polygon's tags - while renderers like F4 assume building parts have the same properties as their surrounding building, it is actually helpful to explicitly place these tags on each building part.

osm.wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings - "The entire building outline should be filled with building:part=* areas, tagged with their respective height and other attributes."

Thanks.

way/1484873169 should not be tagged as farmland. It's very clearly used as a paddock for horses/animals, and is not ploughed or mowed.

Noticed you corrected the collection times syntax here, this was automatically entered by streetcomplete. Might be worth opening an issue if the selection dialogue is providing incorrect tags?

Could do, but it's not really standard practice to keep lifecycle prefixed website and fhrs tags. They're still in the history if anyone needed to check the website for a closed pub. I find people often forget to delete old tags when pois rebrand, so it keeps them clean for whatever appears next.

I'm not sure this is appropriate for OSM - it's not a serious proposal, is it? There's no way this is ever being built and it's not proposed by any governments.

Reverted - this changeset incorrectly created three United Kingdom relations, one for each overseas territory. The Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands are already part of the British Overseas Territory relation, please don't make such significant changes to country boundaries in the future without discussing them first.

Hi, I've reverted the geometry changes to Digswell Viaduct - the original alignment was correct, but the angle of the bing imagery makes the tracks and viaduct appear 10m too far to the West. The bridge area should actually be drawn according to where the base of the supports is, not the deck, in cases like this.
Regardless, thanks for your other changes locally, and please feel free to ask any questions should you have them!

I've removed the four duplicate Sports Direct shops that you created here.

Please take care when replacing nodes with areas - you should move all the address details and other details over, instead you deleted node/7221385596 without transferring this information