Note that aerial imagery was unclear, so building shape is approximate

osm.org/changeset/140229151

In the end, I've uploaded the photos to Geograph at the link below. I think there may be a delay before they're generally available. I'll replace the link on the memorial `node`.

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/7574358
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/7574349
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/7574344

I'll look into uploading it to Wikimedia Commons myself, since I took it.

Note that the image linked from osm.org/node/11135114575 (https://westnordost.de/p/161458.jpg) is not stable, now the note is closed, the image will eventually be deleted.

osm.org/note/3439484

Hello,

I noticed you've made a two successive changes to osm.org/relation/12524970 whereby you added the flat numbers with the addr:housenumber tag. This tag is to be used for housenumbers, which relate to the street. For flat numbers, where they relate to the building, you should use addr:flats (osm.wiki/Key:addr:flats).

Also, you have put so many individual numbers that they do not fit, since the size of tag/keys is limited. I would suggest probably leaving the "D" off the numbers, and just using a range, since the D is already contained in the addr:housename.

I've carried out the relevant correction in osm.org/changeset/127058372, if you know the range of flat numbers, you should add this. I'm not currently in a position to survey it myself.

I think that there was an editing conflict while I was still editing, and I seem to recall I decided to keep what had changed (i.e. discard my own edits).

Hello, was osm.org/way/913874713 extended following a survey, or using only aerial images?

Thanks for adding Rated Builders London to the map (osm.org/node/9203994779).

I note that you haven't added a type. Is this an office, a shop, or something else? For now, I have added the tags craft=builder (osm.wiki/Tag:craft%3Dbuilder) and office=company (osm.wiki/Tag%3Aoffice%3Dcompany).

You might also want to move the location to a better place (like inside the building, if this is an office).

Also note that OSM isn't an advertising directory, so the description you put isn't really appropriate.

Please also see osm.org/note/2935384 and osm.org/changeset/113772707.

the building that I moved over Bath Lane, and forgot to delete before uploading the changes, has been deleted in changeset osm.org/changeset/112038880

Also see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1aiP

Thanks for your feedback.
Firstly, I'll explain that I used this tag as I thought that it was likely that a amenity=parking tag was needed, but that this needed checking, and if it was the case, the to_check: part could have been removed. I feel this serves a slightly different purpose to a fixme tag, though it would be more obvious/useful if multiple tags added needing checking (e.g. if I'd added to_check:capacity=3). I was aware of the existence of fixme tags.
If this is not appropriate, I can refrain from using it in the future, or I can additionally add a fixme tag if I find I need to use to_check: again.

I am just looking at the other places I've used this tag, and on all the others, I've put a fixme tag, so I shall always do so in future. Several of these have multiple tags prefaced in this way for the reasons explained above.

To summarise what I'll do:
Always put a fixme tag where appropriate on an object.
Avoid putting to_check on simple/single tags.
Add a fixme tag to the object you mentioned. (osm.org/changeset/109671107)

If you have any further questions, please do let me know.

Apologies, I hadn't noticed that there was an online:shop tag, so I added a shop= tag. I wasn't aware of the existence of that tag, so it hadn't occurred to me to look for it. Thank you for letting me know.

Note: the source is not a survey: this is a changeset tagging mistake (carried over from a previous changeset following an actual survey).

For anybody looking at this changeset and wondering why no cycleway tags were added, I split the way when answering the quest in StreetComplete, and since (I believe) the answer was not uploaded immediately (and this was before v32+), I would have been unable to answer for the way once split.

See the issue https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2865 (raised by another user)

That wasn't the final update. The issue I mentioned above is evidently in the wrong repo, and I was directed to another repo, where an issue had already been opened and closed (seemingly without being implemented).

https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/issues/105

Final update: I've now re-added highway=no to the ways that it was removed from.

Another update to say that I have opened an issue on the GitHub repo for the iD editor about the incorrect suggested change. You can find the link to it below:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8484

I can now confirm that it is an edit proposed by the iD editor. For example, if I select osm.org/way/626248712 in the editor, it says "Highway feature has outdated tags": "Some tags change over time and should be updated.
Suggested updates:
- highway=no".

(- meaning removal, + meaning change or addition, I think)

To resolve this problem in future, I can try to check what edits iD is suggesting and endeavour to prevent it doing this. However, this is not a permanent solution, as any other user of the iD editor may carry out the suggested "improvement" regardless.

It is probably a good idea for someone to raise an issue for the iD editor at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD. If no-one else does so, I may do so myself, but it shan't be immediately added by me.

Unless you let me know otherwise, I shall replace highway=no on the affected ways in due course.

Thanks again for letting me know about the issue, and do let me know if you have any further questions.