That stinks of the kind of commercial bureacracy that FSF, GPL, and CC were formed to prevent and fight against.

How dare they sneak this up on us. I mean, it's absolutely disgraceful that we've only had around four years' notice of a potential change, and that most of the discussion was limited to open forums that any contributor can be a part of. It's not even like it's been put to a vote, apart from that one carried out by the Foundation (which only anyone can be a part of), and this one being offered right now.

The sheer cheek of it ...

If people are using relations to share ways between polygons, they're doing it wrong. Two buildings with a shared wall are two polygons, not three ways and two relations.

Bye Liz. Mind the door as you leave.

What do you know, the sky didn't fall down after all ...

As with any large project, time to completion tends to a constant which is not always zero. We may well end up reaching the point where we are permanently 42 days to completion. Always useful to have a salt cellar handy when daling with these figures.

It may be that the road is Eastgate while the addresses are High Street. Wouldn't be the first place where the street addresses differ from the road name. I work in a building where this is the case.

PROTIP: It's a spatial database. That sort of requires that things have a location.

[Slightly less-obvious tip: Flandrensis' land claims are void ab initio.]

You wouldn't. There, that was easy. :o)

I think this is the series that aired last year. If it is, it's well worth watching for anyone with even a passing interest in the subject.

You may not find it impressive, but if someone said to me there were "almost 100 organized groups around the world", I'd be impressed.

Z18 tiles aren't necessarily re-rendered if nobody's looked at them, so they can be a bit behind the times.

That's unfortunate, because the nonsense that goes on at tagging-related pages is precisely the thing that has driven people away in the past, and you're unlikely to win them back unless you put a stop to it. Another brilliant example: Template:No proposal seems to encourage the creation of proposal pages for tags that are documented and in use.

Part of the problem is that we seem to have a group of idiots that think the wiki should be used as a venue for tag bureaucracy, and another group of idiots that won't bother with it because of the first group. A prime example is the designation tag. A "proposal" has lingered for a year and a half, and in that time the tag has entered common use - yet someone is now suggesting that we proceed with the utterly pointless and futile exercise of a formal vote (you couldn't action a "no" vote at this stage).

The former group need to accept that the wiki is for documentation - description, not prescription. Only once they're dealt with are you going to get the latter group into the fold.

Personally, for NSL roads I tag the explicit number, if only because it's impossible to determine with any certainty what that would be from the data alone. A way tagged oneway=yes may be 30, 60 or 70mph, depending on stuff we can't reliably detect. A "restricted road" (30mph) is one where there is street lighting to a certain standard which lit=yes doesn't tell us (unless people are going to measure the spacing and tag them lit=45m or somesuch). A one-way road may be part of a dual carriageway, or it may not - consider the ring road in Stourbridge or the Redditch Ringway. IIRC, neither of these is actually NSL, so they should be tagged explicitly anyway, but it illustrates the difficulty of trying to detect which category a road should belong in. Then there are added complications involving motorways and the like - the A1 east of the Edinburgh Ring Road is explicitly signed as 70mph because it is not subject to the NSL (mostly an accident of history).

I don't buy the argument about the government changing the NSL, since local authorities can change speed limits in any case (my local authority in the last couple of years downgraded a lot of previously NSL roads to 40mph). source:maxspeed seems like a good idea, since this allows the combined cases of the government changing the NSL, and the fact that different vehicle types have different speed limits - e.g. HGVs limited to 40mph on single-carriageway roads.

There's also Nominatim, which powers the search on the slippy map. It has some oddities, like thinking that the Palace of Westminster is in Hertfordshire, or that Tonyrefail is a suburb of Swansea in the Vale of Glamorgan (a two-step fail on that one), but depending on the quality of boundary data it should be able to get a rough fix on most locations. Just be careful with politically-sensitive locations - we don't want to be putting Nicaraguan troops in Costa Rica again.

If they all had the same speed limit, barring some exceptions, you could tag the exceptions, and then use JOSM to find the remaining streets to tag in one go.

In an ideal world, every way would have a maxspeed value. We don't live in an ideal world, though. You can probably get away with omitting them on residential strets, but on the major streets and other roads they're more important for routers to be able to override their (often horribly optimistic) assumptions.

They're false-positives. One of them referred to an admin boundary that isn't and shouldn't be joined, and the other appears to refer to a land-use polygon. Could have been someone saying "my house number is wrong". Alternatively, it could have been someone mis-clicking on the MapDust map.

The one I pegged as completely useless was an "Other" category report, with no supporting comment, without a proposed or actual route. I would think it would probably be better if these never got through in the first place. There may also be issues with Skobbler's rendering, since I've closed two reports claiming missing miniroundabouts which were on the map for at least a year before the report was filed.

alexz+1. Ugly rendering is ugly. Don't change the data to make it more beautiful. I had someone down my way remove a car park because they thought that the fact that it was a private car park wasn't evident in the rendering.