Hi Chris, not sure that these stairs are really private as it's (or at least it was) possible to use them to walk from Blenheim Place to Greenside Row (and vice versa).

Hi wille, thanks for your answer. I agree with what Chris wrote for several reasons: 1. all the approved tags aren't rendered by the default map renderer, 2. the OSM specifications are a kind of foundation to build the OSM database, the default map renderer isn't, 3. the current OSM specifications do not yet covered all the mappable objects so it's good to try pushing some new tags into the OSM specifications, 4. if you use amenity=school, it can lead to some confusions for OSM data consumers/OSM users.

Why not creating a new tag here for this kind of school (even if there is a limited number of them at the moment), e.g. amenity=derose_school or derose_method_school, the same way that amenity=language_school has been created (see the urls above written by SomeoneElse).

What do you think to use two names for these schools: a short one, "DeRose Method" , and a long one (using alt_name), "DeRose Method - New Town" (the same way the names of the supermarkets don't include the neighbourhood in which they are located)?

The number at the gate is 27 and the one associated with the cemetery is 17. 17 seems to be the right one. Just let me know what to do Chris and I'll update it as I have to improve the place in order to merge the two cemeteries (one is a multipolygon named Old Calton Burial Ground and the other one is a polygon named Old Calton Cemetary --> Cemetery) which represent the same entity with different geometries. Thanks.

Agree with GinaroZ so I removed amenity=shop.
The tagging shop=recycling doesn't exist but makes sense here.

As it isn't a hotel, I'm going to change the value of "tourism": hotel->apartment

They probably moved there as the other company at the 22 apparently moved (their website is no longer online). I changed the name into Nordic Visitor, kept the previous one as alt_name and as it isn't a shop, use office=travel_agent instead. As we have to survey Shandwick place soon, we'll check this office (to remember it, I'm going to add a note)

Hi, thanks to let us know about it. These POIs have just been updated.

You pretend here that you delete a duplicate place but basically what you did was to change Marchmont into Bruntsfield (why? because it's Marchmont) and deleted the previous Bruntsfield.

Please engage with the local community before doing such an edit. It's much easier to have a community discussion first then to act rather than the contrary.

I'm going to revert both of your edits here.

Could you please give us a source for the name of this neighbourhood? Thanks.

St Leonard's isn't a suburb. The previous tagging was correct so I'm reverting once again this edit.

To be honest, I feel a bit guilty to revert it but please engage and discuss with others first before creating your own map. OSM is a common map based on a community who tries to improve together a common good.

Thanks for your understanding.

Eric

Hi again,

Mayfield was already mapped as a locality here (osm.org/node/35878096). If you think that Mayfield is a suburb, once again please engage a discussion with the local OSM community via a note or an email. Thanks.

I'm going to delete your edit here to avoid any duplication with Mayfield. Sorry about that.

Could you also write in your comment what your edit is about and now just "tidy up" as it'd help other mappers to understand the nature of your changes.

Eric

Hi, thanks for your contributions. It'd be good to know why you deleted this suburb as it appears to exist, mainly if you're a local as I'm.

So just to let you know that I'm going to revert your edit.

Then if you really want to delete it please add a note to the map or write a message on the OSM-Scotland mailing list to engage and discuss with the local OSM community.

Cheers,
Eric

No (I just asked them directly). So I changed the name as it was previously

Thanks for your contribution. As this coffee was already mapped (Wee Coffee Bar -- node/2103111398), I'm going to remove the amenity you just created.

The wall you tagged as King's Wall is apparently not the King's wall according to archaeological studies. This Wall was along what is now St Mary's street. That's why there was no name for this wall.

Hi all, from my point of view, the residential areas should be used only to map the areas without buildings at the moment, as decided collectively a year and a half ago at an Edinburgh pub meeting (so a local decision to try finding a local OSM standard for Edinburgh). I fully agree that it would be great to write down the approach chosen in Edinburgh on the OSM wiki. In the next few weeks, we (with my colleagues) will improve the tags of the buildings to be consistent through the city (to remove the maximum of building=yes).
BTW, it's always possible to recreate programmatically these residential areas (some code will be created very soon any way to extract OSM datasets in order to add them in the City of Edinburgh open data portal, under the OSM organisation, among other things). All these activities will be fully transparent. The main idea is indeed to write about it on the OSM wiki, on the OSM Talk-Scotland mailing list, and to invite any one to contribute in an open discussion to find some agreements and to have some road maps for the future of OSM in Edinburgh (including the completion of the map in term of extension, the maintenance, the addition of other information such as the 3D elements or other, etc.). More information about it soon.

Fixed in osm.org/changeset/38502216
(including other features -- roads, railways and boundaries)

Hi, thanks for your answer. Rather than reverting your entire edit, I retrieved these neighbourhoods from the OSM history using the overpass turbo api and re-added them to the map (osm.org/changeset/37704841).
A revert process would have been easier here and clearer as well as it would have kept the history (versioning) of these objects. But because most of the time, your edits are made on a very large area, a revert can't be achieved. To help the local OSM community, would you mind in your future edits, to focus on small areas (even if you have to do more edits/uploads) and use comments which describe more precisely what your edits are about.
But once again, thanks very much for your contributions and hope to see you next Tuesday at the pub meeting at 7pm at the Guildford Arms.
Best. Eric

In this edit, you deleted 4 polygons which represented 4 different neighbourhoods -- Ravelston (way 256067287), Drum Brae (way 256067261), Clerwood (way 256067252) and Carrick Knowe (way 256067249) -- and decided to keep and to update the 4 nodes representing these places. Even if the polygons weren't mapped perfectly (each mapper has its own conception of the limits of a neighbourhood), they were at least giving a spatial idea of the extent of these neighbourhoods (which nodes can't give), which is quite useful. You may also consider here that some OSM contributors spent some time in the past mapping them. So in this context, why did you decide to delete them on your own? As Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse), on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group, mentioned to you the other day, "OSM is a collaborative community, and we have to work together to create the best map. Sometimes there's no problem - we can just add unmapped stuff. However, when changing the status of something existing it can be tricky - different points of view may need to be discussed". So please really consider discussing further changes of this kind on the talk-scotland (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-scotland/) or talk-gb OSM mailing lists. Otherwise, other OSM contributors can be discouraged to see that all their efforts have been reduced to nothing by another person who just deleted their edits. By the way, you're more than welcome to the next OSM pub meeting in Edinburgh which will be next Tuesday at 7pm as indicated here (osm.wiki/Edinburgh#Upcoming_Pub_Meetings).

But in any case, thanks a lot for your contributions and edits, and please be in touch.