I'm not sure what's happened to osm.org/node/1005898491 - it looks like two stiles have got merged together. I'll need to go and check to see which way around they are (unless you're going to?)

No - no need for a revert (what you've done isn't wrong!) - I'm just saying that I will get around to these eventually, once there are enough hedges in place, and where there are enough GPS traces to align the imagery (as there definitely are here).

Note that this was reverted by osm.org/changeset/26914668 . I sent the user a message explaining that deleting something in OSM deletes it for everyone, and suggesting "uMap" as an option for creating a personal map. I didn't do all that in this changeset discussion comment because this changeset predates changeset discussion comments and they'd never see the message!

As you may have noticed, I've been holding off adding farmland around here until I can add the hedges and gates, because it's easy to see where a hedge or fence has been added where there isn't already a field boundary (sometimes Bing can help with gates, but sometimes it doesn't). There is a public footpath through the south of this field, so they'll get added eventually.

I wonder if the inhabitants of "Boothby Pagnell" would object to being called a "drain added from OS StreetView Data" :-)

Hi, I think that something's gone a bit wrong with osm.org/way/313705714 - the southern edge doesn't run along the hedge (which in reality it does). Also - there's some sort of odd overlap in the southwestern corner: osm.org/edit?editor=id#map=21/53.16232/-1.39046

Also, are you going to add the missing hedges and gates too?

For info I removed osm.org/node/2691993018/history as it was a duplicate of the village just a few yards to the west.

I can't comment on the actual changes (I try and avoid London where possible!) but it is usual to try and discuss changes that affect lots of people before making them - I suspect that's part of the issue here.

Just in case you haven't spotted it, these changes are being discussed on the talk-gb mailing list in this thread:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2014-November/016811.html

Just in case you haven't spotted it, these changes are being discussed on the talk-gb mailing list in this thread:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2014-November/016811.html

What's been mapped here doesn't match my recollection from a month ago. There weren't three parallel bridges here, only one (wide) one. The path to the southeast was also not named "Tow path".

When were you last here? Have things changed very recently?

This appears to have changed "trees=mixed" to "leaf_type=mixed" across Europe (e.g. osm.org/way/301036136 and osm.org/way/285880535/history). Does a mix of trees really imply a mix of leaf types? Couldn't they be different trees but all still broad leaved?

(continuing the changeset comment)

There are several routes signed down here; a Staffordshire Moorlands Walk is one, the Staffordshire Way is another. It's not named either of those.

> I'm not sure either. Actually I probably would have reverted this changeset already if I knew how :).

Well I can do that for you if you'd like me to (using the "revert" plugin in the JOSM editor)?

> What I really wanted to do was make the rendered name label proportional to the size of the area (or at least readable -- it was tiny before) and make the perimeter of the site more obvious for people who search for it.
I don't think that "leisure=fishing" is rendered in the "standard" map. For what it's worth, it is in the "humanitarian" layer though:

osm.org/way/163597883#map=18/53.39850/-1.58383&layers=H

The "standard" map does render some landuse names, though when I did an Overpass Turbo query for "leisure=fishing, with a name, and "landuse" set to something (*1) none of the names appeared.

osm.org/relation/1124276

was a particular surprise since it's "landuse=commercial" and that normally does get rendered (it does render on my tile server at home, which is based on the OSM style from around June, but that's not a lot of use to you!)

So I'm not really sure what to suggest (other than asking somewhere else)

Cheers,

Andy

*1:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/67v

/*
This query looks for nodes, ways and relations
with the given key/value combination.
Choose your region and hit the Run button above!
*/
[out:json][timeout:25];
// gather results
(
// query part for: “leisure=fishing”
way["leisure"="fishing"]["name"]["landuse"]({{bbox}});
relation["leisure"="fishing"]({{bbox}});
);
// print results
out body;
>;
out skel qt;

Ah! I see. It got merged into osm.org/relation/3297504

Er - was the deletion of the "Lindsey Trail" in this changeset deliberate? (see http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=3297503 )

I'm not sure that a relation of a group of separate objects is the best way to represent this? After a search, "leisure=fishing" seems to be a thing: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=fishing#values but I don't think that the standard map renders it. Maybe it's worth asking on the help site or a mailing list?

Just wondering - is there any reason why this roundabout has been reset from "trunk" to "trunk_link"? It's not a common form of tagging, as this shows:

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/junction=roundabout#combinations

I'm guessing that osm.org/way/227855897/history#map=18/55.07606/-6.49578&layers=N should probably be "layer=-1" rather than "layer=1"?

It'd be really helpful if you could use a changeset comment that's a bit more meaningful than "Fix". With a deleted relation, there's no bounding box stored with the changeset, so it appears both "nowhere and "everywhere".

In this case how about something like "deleted right turn restriction after checking that you are allowed to turn right here" (or whatever you actually did)?