I've added a second booth given there are actually a pair there.

Can you remember where the ref on the booth is in terms of which one is which?

I wonder if the ref field would be a better bet for tagging them?:
osm.wiki/Key:ref

Hi @paulchen-panther

Did you really intend to add some drinking water (curiously named in German) in central London? I couldn't see them on the surface either when I was in the area (although there is an underpass nearby).

Regardless of country, unless they are actually "named" drinking fountain, you'd be better off tagging that fact using osm.wiki/Key:fountain as then anyone (regardless of the language they speak) will be able to find that info).

Thanks for confirming, I've deleted your one and moved mine as it had a bit more info, and added some more from their website too, in osm.org/changeset/166444451

Indeed the aerial imagery shows a wedge shaped building in the gap, I believe the cafe is in there.

Did I put osm.org/node/12470289765 in the wrong place @Jmv61, or are there two adjacent cafes? I think I was a bit suspicious there was a missing building or something?

Thanks. I'll confess I've not been in the O2 Centre for ages, I simply go past it quite often.

Hi @flatroy ,

I noticed you erroneously created lots of extra JD Sports and Under Armour nodes using Every Door. If you have any more background/detail on what you did, I'm sure the developers would appreciate it. I've resolved the duplicates, but there's a note in their issue here:
https://github.com/Zverik/every_door/issues/605#issuecomment-2746212344

Thanks for fixing the BoConcept duplication. I generally find it useful to convert a shop to vacant rather than deleting the node (unless a neighbour has increased in size or whatever) as then tools like StreetComplete will encourage a resurvey in future if/when it gets re-occupied.

Hi @MapMasterMike you've converted mac to computer:type, but it's currently a car dealership the mac/PC tags were from when it was a computer shop before that.

As you may be local @VMPanes could you take a look at my note:
osm.org/note/4638985

This was driven by my note osm.org/note/4111778

As per my note, and I clearly wasn't quite clear enough as I can't tell myself, but are we sure there isn't bicycle AND motorbike parking here?
osm.org/note/3020581

Hi @okaywithmydecay,

I assume you mean osm.org/node/348426185 ?

I didn't add the address number, but both the old FHRS data and the old occupant's website seem to think it was that number:
https://ratings.food.gov.uk/business/570656
https://www.phocafe.co.uk/locations/islington/

The fact it was listed on their website and yet I'd marked it as disused was a bit odd. Having searched I think it's moved and the wrong data got entered for the wrong venue at the wrong time.
This is also 39 Upper Street, but with no conflicting or matching shop name:
osm.org/way/31324105

#surveyme

Just FYI luxiaghd, at least one of these doesn't exist any longer osm.org/node/10280285472

Likewise there was at least one more removed one further South into Harrow.

I was a bit confused why I'd not answered the covered question before, but now I understand it's because they're newly added.

Would it make sense to tag this as "payment:bitcoin=no" rather than just deleting it given someone has explicitly validated that they don't take it, which confirms someone has checked.

Also I don't believe there is a "shop" here to sell them, unless its on a floor above.

So SC shows a question such as "Is there a waste basket at this stop?", then describes the node it's asking the question about, showing normally things like name and type, so in this case I now just get "Northbound (Subway Platform)" or similar. But likewise if I do an Overpass search, or consume the data in any other way, then there's no context to the platforms even around one station:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mU0

Plus more crucially as I mentioned, I don't believe this name tagging is in line with general usage or the wiki recommendations.

Could you expand on the reasons and benefits of making this particular change?

@DaveF can I ask why you've done this?

It removes lots of useful and indeed vital context from these ways and just generates issues such as these:
osm.org/note/3401078

Particularly when there are multiple lines at the same station, and given there don't appear to be any relations between platform and line.

Also as you can see from the list of ways, they're pretty unmanageable too as you've no way to differentiate them to even which line they're on.

I'd also argue it doesn't match the wiki guidance "This key is set to the primary name of the feature in the real world." as you'd have the same chaos I'm encountering at any station with multiple lines if there were multiple all labelled only "Northbound".

I assume you mean osm.org/node/6692612534

I was primarily trying to tag the building type and struggling to find a good preset on iD.

Thanks for sorting the outline, I've removed my fixme now given it looks much improved. Does whatever source you used better show the piazza and other areas around there?

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Similar to Bernard's comments on the other changeset, I don't believe any of these footpaths are formally named, and they'd be pavement rather than sidewalk as they're in the UK. You've also missed the path on the other side of each road suggesting they don't exist. Only formal verifiable names should be added to OSM.

You've also marked the whole way as traffic_signals, whereas it should only be used on nodes.

While the micro-mapping will be beneficial, it needs to be accurate regarding showing both sides to be of use.

Sorry, e.g. osm.org/way/952157069

I suspect you might have made one road into two one-way carriageways (and added the other side as independent ways), but not re-edited the relevant sidewalk tags to match.