Hi, This wikidata ID has already been added to the "Sports Ground".
osm.org/way/106053639

Looks like there is an issue with the Maproulette challenge. I'll remove the wikidata ID from the recreation ground tag, and ask what's happening on Maproullete

Hi, In this changeset you've deleted the highway=crossing tag for node 342413162 (a Toucan Crossing) , and I think you've done the same for several other crossing. You've added Traffic Signal information but removed crossing information. You've also used the key traffic_signals=pedestrian_crossing when it appears it should be traffic_signals=cyclist_crossing

The crossing tag needs to be retained.
The wiki pages might help

osm.wiki/Key:crossing

osm.wiki/Tag:highway=traffic_signals

This junction in Exeter is a bit of a mess so I'll try and edit the whole thing in the next few days.
Jass

Hi, do you have a source for the name "The Sex Bench" given to the bench in your edit?

I've got to disagree with your definition of highway=proposed. There needs to be some form of schedule, and at least high potential for the project to happen. That is not created in the UK by a planning consent. With regard to this highway. When making the edit I was heading for deleting the way, based on Local Knowledge, but I don't like deleting work done by others. This is a small chance the project could be resurrected, but very unlikely. If there is no sign of the plan resurrecting over the next year I was going to delete the way. The result was, even if temporary, was this fudge of a tag. If you disagreed with the tag, or other data within the changeset, you should have made this comment first, then edited later. 

Hi, thanks for whats appears to be one of your first edits on OSM. I've made a change to your edit. There is a more specific tag for a Picture Framers, shop=frame. So I mad this small change. I also added the associated buildings.

thanks, fixed it

I've reverted the changeset - The revert changeset is osm.org/changeset/124116279

This is a revert of changeset osm.org/changeset/123475148
Changeset had numerous duplicates and points that appeared to be personal POI. No response from mapper after 14 days.

@lakedistrict There is some useful data for artwork type objects, but overall the changeset is clearly a problem. Looking at it again it appears to have added a lot of data. I agree with now doing a revert. I can add the useful data local to me sometime in the future.

Hi, it looks like this is one of your first edits submitted to OpenStreetMap. Thanks for the input, but... there's a few problems with the data.

You added loads of useful data, but many of the objects you mapped appear to be already mapped (eg osm.org/node/9880986226), and some appear to be personal info submitted in error (eg osm.org/node/9880986228#map=17/50.64738/-3.42791).

Also, submitting data for a large area is considered bad practice because it can be difficult to check. It would have been better of each of this points to have submitted as an individual changeset, or as small groups of changes in local areas, where errors can be easily spotted by local mappers.

How do you wish to proceed? You could work through changes using one of available editors. Data your not sure about could be added as note, rather than a map change. It is also possible to simply delete (revert) the entire changeset, but that would involve the loss of useful info.

hi, you've left the reference key on the now disused post box. I assume the reference key can only apply to a functioning post box and needs to be removed from the disused box?

Just to clarify... I don't mean tag hedge_bank should be used in England. I would argue that hedge_bank is a necessary tag, but definition needs discussion, and I'd argue it can be a sub tag for "garden hedges" and "field boundary" hedges. The separation of the two hedge types should not be based around hedgebank.

Concerned with this change, and with the creation of the wiki page and use of hedge_bank. "Hedgebank" is a an British English term referring to a type hedge built on top of bank of earth/ruble, commonly found in the southwest of England.

Strongly agree with need to create a tagging structure/method to separate "garden/small hedges" and large field hedges, and "hedge bank" but believe the solution needs to be discussed first.

I've had a look at the google imagery and the photo's from 2009 confirm that the crossing allows cycling. It does not conform to the requirements of a Toucan Crossing, but your mapping of the crossing as highway=cycleway is correct.

But.. the issue of the blue "cyclists dismount" and the legal meaning is still stands. The sign is not there to clarify the crossing is pedestrian only, and therefore because it is by itself MUST only advise of either low clearance, narrow width, or poor visibility. Even then it would not be an order to actually dismount. Neither of the three reasons appear to be is the case here. The sign appears to be illegally misused to advise cycling is not allowed, based on the common ignorance over the meaning of the sign.

The current mapping of the junction appears correct to me. But with regard to legislation, and practical and safe use by cyclists, it's an abomination.

Can you provide some evidence that the crossing is a Toucan Crossing? Google StreeView can not be used as a source, but images showing that crossing are dated October 2021 and show a pedestrian crossing (outdated Pelican Crossing)

Furthermore, Warrington Council provides a cycle map that shows the cycle track ends at the crossing. From experience I believe the cycle track simply ending at this likely busy junction is leading to cyclists using the pedestrian crossing before joining the road. The "cyclists dismount" sign use is therefore available to the council to clarify the pedestrian only crossing. The sign has been placed on the wrong side of the pedestrian crossing. There is no need to map this "cyclists dismount" sign since as it's function to clarify the crossing is pedestrian is mapped in OSM with highway=footway & a pedestrian crossing node.

There appears to be confusion here regarding the use in the UK of the blue rectangular "Cyclists Dismount" sign. Firstly, the sign is information, and by itself not a command or prohibition. Use is defined in Traffic Signs Manual (ch 3).

By itself, and along a cycle route the sign MUST only be used for the following three reasons. To advise that the Local Authority believes that for an unspecified short distance, cycling may be dangerous due to either (1) Low Headroom (eg subway, (2) reduced width (eg narrow bridge), (3) restricted visibility (eg Don't know of examples).

*To Repeat* The sign is not an order, and the rider may still continue riding, but it would be there own fault if they had an accident due to one of the three reasons listed. In these situations OSM should use tags to show low headroom, or width. Don't think we have tag for visibility.

The sign can further be used in only two other situations. To create increased awareness that cycling is illegal at two situation, (1) at a pedestrian only crossing (usually joining a cycle route), and (2) at the entrance to a pedestrian only zone. For OSM this would be indicated by footways, or highway=pedestrian, which by default are bicycle=no.

British blue "cyclists dismount" signs MUST NOT be used for any other reason. It would be unlawful. They must not be used to show the end of cycleway. They must not used to suggest cyclists dismount at difficult cycling situations (eg cattle grids). But Local Authorities do misuse this sign, and where it is miscued, it has no meaning. It should reported to the appropriate authority for removal.

Furthermore the OSM bicycle=dismount tag, does not have the intended use created by the British blue "cyclists dismount" sign.

For this specific case it appears to case to increase aware that the crossing is a pedestrian crossing, so you must not cycle across it. Dealt with by mapping the crossing as (I assume) a Puffin Crossing,

Hi, I've reverted this change in changeset 117400173. Your change deleted an address, and a business, that are still present.

I assume this was blunder linked to you adding another business with the name Homeworx.

Thankyou. The tagging is wrong, and a blunder. I've have deleted the tag in a changeset which should show in your given way history link

I should add that, that now I'm looking at it, the centre of Exeter is proper complex mess of pedestrian areas which could do with some changes.

Hi sec147. I made a change and reverted your change to the pedestrian area you altered here. Mapping as highway=pedestrian & area=yes, is how the area locally have always been mapped and is the dominant style locally and nationally. There is some dispute about the tagging, but area=yes, is massively preferred, at least, in the UK.