Sorry, but you have incorrectly named "Woughton Park". That is "Monkston Park". I propose to correct it.

Hi, I regret that I do not know.
a. I have never participated in Parkrun.
b. I did not create the original relation with the Parkrun route; nor did I intentionally modify it.
I just ensured that I did not wreck the relation when I did some additional tagging on some way sections that are part of the Milton Keynes Redway Network.
However, now that you have asked the question, I will try to find an answer.
This could take a while....
Regards,
Peter

According to Golley Slater's website, their address is:
Richmond House,
5-8 Richmond Terrace,
Otley Road,
etc.....

However, it is currently tagged as:
addr:housename=Richmond House
addr:housenumber=5-8
addr:street=Otley Road,

which would return it as:

Richmond House
5 - 8 Otley Road,
etc.

I suggest re-tagging it as:
addr:housename=Richmond House
addr:housenumber=5-8
addr:street=Richmond Terrace
addr:parentstreet=Otley Road
etc.
Please see my proposal at
osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Proposal_to_Document_the_Key_%22addr:parentstreet%22

Peter

Thank you for correcting my spelling. Regards, Peter

Thank you. I will correct them soo, as time allows. I don't have an automated tool, but it is quite therapeutic to work steadily on things like this.

Hi, I note that in this changeset, and others in the area (such as osm.org/way/789333189), you seem to have created or updated a number of instances of "highway=footpath". Odd though it may seem, the established tagging for a footpath in OSM is "highway=footway", which is used over 13 million times, compared to fewer than 130 instances of "highway=footpath". See osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway. Would you object, if I upgraded your "highway=footpath" to be "highway=footway"?

Hi, I notice that, in tis changeset, you have created a feature tagged "highway=footpath". unfortunately, the documented tag for a footpath is "highway=footway" (odd, I know, but that is used over 13 million times, compared to less than 130 times for "highway=footpath").. Would you object, if I change all the instances I can find of "highway=footpath" to be "highway=footway"? See osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway

Thanks for agreeing to the change. I did a search with Overpass Turbo and found 4 more instances of "highway=footpath" in the area, so I have updated them also. See osm.org/changeset/96762047
Happy New Year mapping!

Excuse me, but in this changeset, it appears that you have changed a number of ways from "highway=path" to "highway=footpath". I understand and support your intention, but the documented tag for a footpath is (rather oddly) "highway=footway". Please see: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway.
Is that what you meant? ("highway=footway", as the "approved" tagging, will also render in the default carto rendering)

Excuse me, but did you mean to tad Way 837047858 as "highway=footpath", which has only 140 instances in the whole of OSM, or should it be tagged as "highway=footway", which is used 13 million times (and will render in standard carto)? Se also: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway

Excuse me, but did you mean to tad Way 837046807 as "highway=footpath", which has only 140 instances in the whole of OSM, or should it be tagged as "highway=footway", which is used 13 million times (and will render in standard carto)? See also: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway

Hi,
...and thank you for the very prompt response. I came upon this as an armchair exercise, looking for "highway=footpath" and I don't have any on-the-ground knowledge. Thank you for explaining the reasons why you made the edit that you did (and for correcting the footpath/footway typo). I am content now to leave it as it is and await another mapper with better knowledge coming along to improve it further.

Looking at Way 865364188, can I ask why this is an area tagged as “highway=footpath”, which is not connected to anything else?
Footpaths are normally:
a. Tagged as “highway=footway” (over 13 million uses, v. 160 uses of “highway=footpath”)
b. Tagged as a linear feature down the centreline. (although there are cases of city squares and similar being tagged highway=footway as an area)
c. Joined to other navigable features (other highways of some sort),so that they are accessible from the rest of the world.
Please see: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway
I note the reference to Changeset 93505061, but that does not seem to answer my question.

Thank you for raising this comment / question on my changeset.
Sorry, but I was not aware that Bridge 72 also had another name.
I am not convinced that tagging this information as “bridge ref=<nn>” is useful. My experience is that, when organising runs in the area, I often find it convenient to tell people to follow the towpath and turn at “Bridge <nn>” and that each bridge has a sign on it, usually clearly visible from the towpath, with ”<nn>” on it.
I don’t have the knowledge or skills to produce my own specialised rendering, so, when planning runs (and when briefing others via a map) it is helpful if these Bridge Numbers are shown in the default rendering. You might now accuse me of “Tagging for the Renderer”. However, my defence would be that I am not mapping anything that is not true. I am creating an object (“man_made=bridge”), which exists separately from the road or path which goes over it and has a separate identity from it.
We can then debate whether “Bridge <nn>” can be the name of that “man_made=bridge”, or must be a reference. Both names and references are means of identifying an object. I do not believe that anything with a number in it MUST ALWAYS be a reference. I think that the name is the label that the object is most commonly identified by and the reference is a more esoteric and less frequently used (but unique) identifier. Is the bridge in question identifiable by the casual observer as “New Inn Bridge”? From the road, I suppose that the New Inn is pretty obvious to see, but is the bridge marked as “New Inn Bridge” on the ground? I note that the Canal and Rivers Trust shows it as “New Inn Bridge 72”. Which information is it more useful to show on the default rendering? What chance do I have of persuading the Carto support team to change the default rendering to display the bridge_ref, if “<nn> can only be tagged there?
Thank you for acknowledging my efforts in support of OSM. I regret that I am steadily becoming disillusioned with the drawn out, inconclusive debates that go with it being a volunteeropoly.
If you really feel that the “man_made=bridge” object should have “name=New Inn Bridge”, then I will not fight you. Could I suggest, however, that it be given “alt_name=Bridge 72” and that other bridges, which do not have other names, should be left with “name=Bridge <nn>”?

Oops! Thank you for pointing out my error. I have re-aligned the Cycle and Foot Path to run along beside the platform. That GPS trace is obviously not very accurate; I have eventually RTFM and found that it has a more accurate mode, which I will try on my next trip.

Thanks for coming back again. I've had a bit of a look around, finding other instances of "place=square" across the UK. It seems that very few fit the Wiki definition that I quoted earlier. ... and many are not square in shape, nor named "Foo Square". So I think I'll just leave well alone for now.
Thanks for being so willing to revisit the issue.

Oops! That was a typo. Was meant to be "width=3", but width was already set. Thanks for spotting it. Has been deleted.

Thank you for replying so quickly. There is some "debate" going on at the moment on the Tagging Mailing List about the use of "place=square". Some say that it must be near the centre of a town, or village, paved and surrounded by buildings, some say that it must have a name, which includes the word "square", some say that it just has to be an equilateral rectangle (or nearly so). I'll wait for the noise to die down and try to see what the consensus is.
regards,
Peter

I think, if I have interpreted the changesets and entity history correctly, that in this changeset, you added the tag; place=square to Way 478400294.
I know that it is square in shape, but are you sure that it is a "place=square", as defined in the Wiki?
"The place=square is used to map a town square or village square: a paved open public space, generally of architectural significance, surrounded by buildings in a built-up area such as a city, town or village."
Peter

Hi Mike, Thank you for your prompt reply. I regret that I do still feel, quite strongly, that "V8" is part of the name, so I will not be reverting my edits. I am not sure that I would accept the Post Office as the final authority on addresses. All they really use is the house number and postcode; the rest is just a nice-to-have and my Mother-in-Law, for one, does not agree with her address, as shown in the Post-Code Finder (her mail still gets through though).
You are right that there should be a space between "V8" and "Marlborough". I thought that there was and in iD Editor, it was displayed with one, both in the Name Field in the left-hand pane and on the editable map. However, an overpass turbo enquiry revealed about 8 instances with no space, corresponding with the standard rendering showing no space. I have re-edited these few objects,deleting "V8 M" and re-inserting it. I think that has fixed that glitch.
Thank you for your patience.
Regards,
Peter