Reverted in
osm.org/changeset/157839512

Reverted in
osm.org/changeset/157839512

Reverted in
osm.org/changeset/157839512

Reverted in
osm.org/changeset/157839512

Reverted in
osm.org/changeset/157839512

Reverted in
osm.org/changeset/157839512

Reverted in
osm.org/changeset/157839512

Hey Anne,

It looks like the two large buildings are adjacent. See regular Esri;
osm.org/edit#background=EsriWorldImagery&map=19/52.666697/-7.253590
North side is only grey, south side is grey roof with white walls.
The original location was aligned better, I assume it has not changed since the building is new. The current location overlaps with an -overshadowed- walled, paved area in Esri Clarity.
Also, Bing is distorted here.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=157538809

If you did not see the small shed during survey, perhaps it was a temporary construction building/vehicle. (not sure you are able to see it from the street, however.)

The changeset only lists Bing and Clarity oddly enough, though I am sure you would've already checked.

Yes, correct. Thanks for the reply.
I added the check date tag in
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=156864734

Hey MapMeDaddy,

Could you verify this POI still exists, please?
(write a reply to this changeset if you can)
If it does I can add a check date if the quest is not available for you.
Let me know when you can.
Unfortunately, there is currently no imagery of this side of the building.

Regards,

Daniel

Thank you for removing this POI.
Yes, there was some kind of Medieval Mile information column or similar here, but it is no longer there. The original position is still visible in the tiling.
This and a few other information markers were repositioned or demolished at the same time.
2023:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1234227897295173&focus=photo

2024:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1517579655473566&focus=photo

Regards,

Daniel

osm.org/node/2157699686/history
Are you sure it is private, not customers?

Follow-up from
osm.org/note/3992881

Restored in
osm.org/changeset/156044443

osm.org/node/7110676739
Is the survey point demolished?
If so, please indicate it as such.

Hey DjaRiver,

There seems to be some grass (lightgreen) visible on the left/west side of the road on Bing. (ignore the tree)
Also, this area is aligned to Mapbox.

I have looked at the aerial imagery again and tried to improve the accuracy.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=155024431
(the alignment is similar to the previous version)

What do you think?

Regards,

Daniel

Hey SerendipitySue,

Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap.

I added the public bookcase and misc. details for the bicycle repair.
- osm.org/node/12090424210
- osm.org/node/11943535043

If you have any feedback, or something is missing, let me know.

It would be useful if you could add a clear, close-up, up-to-date image of the public bookcase and specify what kind of books the public bookcase is intended for (children and/or adults).
https://mapcomplete.org/bookcases.html?z=17.9&lat=42.79634449808941&lon=-73.82522892206578#node/12090424210

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Omnific,

osm.org/node/11335962713
Are you sure there is a milk churn stand here?
If so, could you provide the source you used, if possible, please?
Otherwise, I would suggest correcting the tagging yourself, or removing the object. If you are unsure how to tag it, ask on
community.openstreetmap.org

Regards,

Daniel

Removed defibrillator manufacturer. adding it was a misunderstanding. Only the cabinet is visible. It comes from the retailer.

Hey mueschel,

Sorry, I will try to clean these up myself.

Regards,

Daniel

osm.org/changeset/153792040

Hey Stefan,

Please try to describe your changes and reason for your changes in the changeset comment when saving your edits. This allows other mappers to verify your edits and make changes when needed.
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

The current comment(=description) on your changesets do not describe your changes, only the generic object your are changing. It helps to add if it is addition ('added'), modification ('modified', 'tweaked') or removal ('removed'), and if it is about certain tags or about the geometry, where appropriate to describe the change better.
Of course if you are changing multiple objects you do not have to describe every single change, just what your motivation is ('adding POIs', 'updated POIs', 'corrected road geometry')
You also do not have to describe every changeset, especially if you're travelling. If needed you can always leave a reply to describe further, even if it looks odd in history if there is only a single reply.

Also, try to add the sources you are using, such as aerial imagery, 'local knowledge', 'survey', etc. This is not always added/accurate in editors by default.

Furthermore, in this case it may be useful to know if the log seems artificial/deliberately placed here or is a fallen tree (not always tagged correctly), if it spans across the full path, etc. You can add this in the changeset comment and additionally to the object as a "description" or "note"(, and sometimes as physical properties such as 'width', 'height')

-Grammatical- jokes like below changeset ('well well well') are okay, but without context some changes may become hard to understand, and may be considered fun/troll/spam-only edits by other mappers, which do not belong in OpenStreetMap(, even if data quality is okay). It seems you moved the tags from the node to the area (to deduplicate the object). The change itself seems fine as far as I can see.
osm.org/changeset/96829487
(for example 'moved tags from duplicate well node to area' / 'changed well from node to area' / 'removed duplicate well')

If you're travelling, consider using a mobile editor like Vespucci and complementary editors such as StreetComplete.
(different editors have different focus, may support different tags)
osm.wiki/Editors#Mobile
(it will add changeset comments but these are not always descriptive enough, nor are the tags added always correct. You will have to check this yourself sometimes, like for access tags.)

If possible, could you elaborate on the cause and appearance, please?

Regards,

Daniel