If you get another fine day (perhaps next summer now), you could take printouts of your work and write on the house numbers. I think house numbers in OSM are more useful (for routing applications say) than buildings alone are. I think another zoom level would be useful to show that much detail though. The village is looking good though (and I do think buildings add to the map)

See the Mozilla entries that have MSIE in them for Internet Explorer.

I don't use them, but was considering trying to get in touch with local historians to get them to give me approximate years of build of houses (and roads?) so I could tag them in some way to show how the town has grown over time by creating an animation from the OSM data. Perhaps built_date would be appropriate. As I've not done it yet, I've not searched to see whether there is any tag already suggested for year of build in the wiki.

What do the Tracks, Mapped and Labelled columns actually refer to? I can guess that tracks might mean that GPS traces have been uploaded for the route and Mapped is based on the length of ways added to the relation, but labelled? I had assumed that the single % column in the other table was the equivalent of the Mapped column only.

I can't find amenity=winery in the wiki, though there is a dormant proposal for man_made=winery. It isn't a term I've come across so looked it up in wikipedia and it looks to me to be the building where the wine is made which may or may not be located in its own vineyard (see landuse=vineyard, which is rendered as here osm.org/go/0EFyg64fy- ). So for winery areas I'd be tempted to add the building=yes tag, and it should then render appropriately. Can't help with nodes though ;)

Or even source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator, sorry...

I would say that if done carefully then having a source:name=OS_Locator layer is no worse than having a nonames layer. Omitting such source tags would certainly be "not helpful", but if done carefully the map can be improved to a stage where the OS Locator ITO overlay shows roads where names differ between Locator/Streetview, or differ between Locator and what is already there (I wouldn't change an existing name without a survey). I have done a bit of armchair mapping, but set a few ground rules before doing so, documented on my user wiki page here:

osm.wiki/User:EdLoach#Armchair_mapping

It is a lot of effort though (and in many cases I was naming roads that were traced from NPE, as well as adding a few newer ones), and I've currently moved onto fixing the existing administrative boundary relations in the British Isles (not adding new ones, just fixing those that have already been started but not finished).

"I'm quite happy to go with the majority on this one"

If you're using usage stats then there are about 6 million addr:postcode and only about 340,000 postal_code (source: taginfo). Whether a bot got involved at any point, or whether address tagging only took off after the Karlsruhe scheme became popular I don't know.

I do know I used to add both when there wasn't any clear reason why to use one over the other.

And your diary entry reminds me that last night I drove past what was a restaurant and is now a Health and Beauty salon with fish spa (fish=yes?) that I need to retag. Will do that now.

I think when JOSM first starts it tries to get attribution information from Bing ("Successfully loaded Bing attribution data." appears in the console). If that fails then no Bing imagery will work for that session. Restarting JOSM usually resolves it for me.

Yes, but we all get them. *Some* people are daft enough to use multipolygon relations when boundary ones (WITHOUT OUTER as a role, whatever JOSM validator tells you) was working great. (and relax....)

You can do anything you like with your own contributions. The CT only say what the project can do with your contributions to the project. So no changes needed.

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/?key=addr:housenumber#values

There are about 8 million house numbers on nodes and about 2 million on ways. If you are drawing a building you can put the address details directly on the way and don't need a separate node.

e.g. osm.org/go/euzPZE4wD--
or
osm.org/go/0EFrigrss--

It is possible that someone collected house numbers before sources to trace buildings were available, in which case they would likely have used nodes, but if you add buildings later than you can move the tags to the way. And I would say it is only a rare building that requires a multi-polygon relation. It is much more common that they don't.

Documentation shouldn't be too hard to find as there is a big "Documentation" link on the left of this page. I'm not sure I follow the detail of the rest of your diary entry, but relations are often used when they aren't needed (why would a building need to be a multi-polygon if it doesn't have a hole in it) or completely abused (see the wiki page about relations are not categories).

It is perhaps better that you help get them involved and they know who you are to listen to your experience than for them to find OSM on their own and wonder who you are to tell them that after all their hard work they should have done it better (however diplomatically it is phrased). I've just had the second situation occur locally (though I've not contacted them yet). A new mapper has scattered loads of POIs over the district which is great - detail that wasn't there before. But some of them could have been done better, such as a supermarket node originally placed in the car park (based on bing background) and later dragged to the middle of the previously traced building outline, rather than just transferring the tags to the existing object. At some point I'll have to tell them how to draw building outlines from bing to add the details to, such as takeaways and other shops, though the phone boxes they've added are pretty much as well mapped as I can imagine (does anyone try to do those as areas?).

Interesting graph (though axis labels are swapped). I'm also assuming that the f(x) has some reference date for where x=0?

I'd also query the "correctly named" claim. With OS Streetview and OS Locator themselves sometimes differing on the name of any particular road, and sometimes both agreeing but not agreeing with what is on the ground, the best that can happen is "probably correctly named, but really could do with survey to confirm".

There is a bit about the history here: http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/features/Union-Canal-church-history.6736486.jp - as it has also had educational use since being a church I might even just use building=yes rather than being more specific.

If we are talking about this node: osm.org/browse/node/482446817 then as sources on the internet suggest you are correct about the name, but as the church closed in 1941 it probably shouldn't really be tagged as a place of worship any more (even with access=private). I'd probably draw the outline from Bing imagery and tag it building=ex-church old_name=St Kentigern's (or something along those lines). Oh, and once the building was added, remove the node (or move the node to the starting point to draw the building, to sort of keep some connection between the node and the way that replaces it).

Thanks for answering my question. There is a chance I didn't add the pylons as I was using Potlatch at the time to cover the large areas involved; with JOSM I'd have traced the lines and then used a search for "child selected" to add the pylons. Perhaps I should revisit the areas, if I can remember where I was mapping exactly...

What does the image show? I have vague recollections of doing quite a bit of powerline/imagery stuff in GA, but the map there looks a bit sparse.

If Dhaval's location is accurate, he is a little unfortunate in some ways in that both Bing and OS Streetview are too old to show the development.

Looking at it positively though, it's a great opportunity to collect waypoints outside every house in your street along with the associated housenumbers and add that data as nodes to OSM until outlines are available, so that at least for a while where you live OSM is the best map available and you can say that you made it so...