You can use this page to keep track of your edits.

The trick is to enter ranges whenever possible. If only because quite often not doing so makes it virtually impossible to fit anything (at least in North American where 4-digit housenumbers are a very common occurrence)

@Paul (your post wasn't there when I started): Mapnik actually displays highway=road differently from highway=unclassified/residential. Using tat tag would have resulted in the US being displayed different from any other country (which might have been a good thing: it'd have given US mappers a good excuse to hop on). ~~~~

It's about through traffic: if the road is a significant connecting road, but not quite up to secondary level, it's a tertiary. I think a good rule of thumb is to put county and low-use state roads as tertiary (most state road are secondary, though, and the major ones are primary), and leave the rest as residential (or unclassified, if you like that better).

Oh, but didn't you know? There are companies that actually specialize in painting the grass of for-sale buildings green.

There's red, which is obviously for deleted/former location. I think blue is for points that were not affected, but are part of modified ways.

Actually although Mapnik doesn't make the difference, I'm fairly sure Osmarender does. AFAIK, unclassified should be officially considered deprecated, but getting something like that agreed is like herding cats, so I won't even try writing up a proposal. Heck, as far as I'm concerned the UK-centric approach to non-car routes has made a MESS of non-road stuff between access tags and path/track/footway/bridleway/byway/cycleway. And now they want to add an extra layer with an official tag!

Well, I actually agree, for the most part. I don't think making a difference between "highway=unclassified" and "highway=residential" is a good idea. Having a "highway=residential" was as far as I'm concerned a bad idea from the start, in fact. We should have only one term fro the lowest "level" of street, and unless there is a functional difference besides what landuse surrounds it, separating these two "definitions" leads to ridiculous stuffs in either direction (why should a street in a commercial estate be marked as unclassified and suddenly become residential? Why should streets that are undifferentiated on the ground become so on the map??).

Actually, I think Telmah's a creative name, almost an Easter Egg in the good sense. I'm reminded of the classic Curiosities of Biological Nomenclature compendium.

Hey, that's interesting. I'll start typing my post in both French and English, I s'pose. Maybe we can even consider splitting Planet OSM by languages now!

I've been considering the possibility of landuse=estate for large private properties that have all the appearance of a park, but are not. This might also include stuff like the private lands of a convent or a country house. Basically it seems to me that marking a large open, but not (or at least not obviously) publicly accessible areais still useful, but I'm not clear how best to do so.

What aggravates me with editing them in Potlatch is that there IS an easy key to cycle through them (the slash), but it will solely work if you have it as a dedicated key (i.e. the numpad), or are using a US keyboard. Hence it is virtually impossible to use this function on many laptops (the bug is known, too).

Personally, I'm all for snapping landuse (and areas in general) to neighboring areas and ways, but the debate is still raging overall.

I thought it the CoE was denomination=anglican ?

To me landuse=grass (as any landuse tag) implies grass that is maintained, and although it is accurate for areas more south of this stretch, this particular area does NOT qualify. And the areas on each side are already mapped properly as landuse=residential or =industrial.

I take some issues with the OpenStreetPhoto analysis (where the hell is the ground for assuming any and all geocoded photos had their coordinates taken from Google maps?). Second, people keep forgetting that there is no "breaching of Google's copyright" given that (AFAIK) very little (until they added their mapmaker, only the usermade map layers were (c) google) of that data is actually owned by Google (i.e. virtually all their U.S. data is the TIGER dataset as licensed by Teleatlas). Now a breach of a PATENT over Google Street View is another issue entirely.

I actually did a long while after street view came along. The images have ridiculous amounts of glare, and indeed all I could manage was to confirm a) that a street did not go as far as the map claimed and b) that it actually had a name (you could see, if not read, the name panel).

Last I looked you couldn't be sued for noting facts represented in a photo (in fact, I distinctly remember my google exemple being distinctly mentioned somewhere as a way StreetView could be used). This would be like a T-shirt maker asserting copyright infringement because I noted that they sell T-shirts with the text "So and so" on them!

Remember that facts (i.e. the existence of footpaths) CANNOT be copyrighted, only their representation (i.e. the specific mapped representation).

A quick search reveals more muddled facts (the case is Virtual Maps v. Singapore Land Authority, BTW) AFAICT, Virtual Maps claimed the SLA data was used solely as a normal roadmap when gathering data, but the court did not rule that THIS was infringement, but merely that howevr it happened, there had been infringement (notably noting the presenc eof SLA easter eggs in the VM data).

Besides, I thought we could, for example, use name plates visible in Google Street as data sources?

agree. As is it will look up every single changeset whose bounding box overlaps the one you want, instead of looking up changes actually occurring in it.