No problem, I‘ve reverted this change because it would have been very hard to fix the geometry.

If you want to re-add the relation for Ease Gill then go ahead (I’m afraid I couldn’t keep that when doing the revert). imo it’s a good idea to keep boundary lines separate from stream centrelines and other physical features. It’s too difficult to satisfy the requirements for the geometry for the boundary and for the stream with one line. :)

Thanks for taking the time to split up the wikidata IDs

Why change foot=yes;discouraged to foot=no? Access by foot is possible (and discouraged), not impossible.

Did you read the discussion on osm.org/changeset/93427676 ?

That would be great, thank you :) Good work on all the other StreetComplete stuff, it’s nice to see all this detail being added!

Heya, thanks for doing StreetComplete around Keswick recently.

This changeset duplicates a lot of names — it adds the name of the shop as the addr:housename of the building containing it. Please don’t do that — there should only be one name for each thing in OSM, and in the case of shops it’s typical for addr:housename to be unset.

Put another way, according to OSM the postal address for the co-op in Keswick is now:

Lakes & Dales Co-operative (name),
25 (addr:housenumber) / Lakes & Dales Co-op (addr:housename) Main Street (addr:street),
Keswick (addr:city),
CA12 5EF (addr:postcode)

Hopefully that shows why the addr:housename is redundant here. It would only be relevant if the building had a name as well as a house number, and that name didn’t change between shop tenants.

Good suggestion. I’ve added service:vehicle:sales=caravan service:vehicle:rental=caravan in osm.org/changeset/169604647

I thought about service:caravan:sales=yes (etc.) but that would have broken ID’s interpretation of the data. Refining the value of the tag seemed like a more backwards compatible change.

If a car dealer is also selling caravans then the dealership could be tagged with service:vehicle:sales=motorcar;caravan.

Why have you merged the administrative boundary line with the stream centreline? The geometries were different. The stream now doesn’t follow the streambed on aerial imagery.

shop= implies that caravans are sold there, yes. Tagging it with service:vehicle:sales=yes makes that explicit. That’s not a bad thing, it removes uncertainty. Given that there’s no top-level tag (that I know of) for ‘caravan rental shop’, having service:vehicle:sales=yes makes it clear that’s not the intended meaning of shop=caravan service:vehicle:rental=yes.

i.e. I can see your argument but I don’t see why you’d go to the bother of removing the tag. It is correct, it adds clarity, and we’re not short on database space.

In any case, please use a more descriptive changeset comment than “POI Update”, to let others understand the reasoning behind your change. Almost all changesets could be described as POI updates. :)

Hiya, thanks for your edits around Kendal recently. Why are you deleting parking aisles? Have the car parks been rearranged since the aerial imagery was updated? Ta

The NHLE listing for this boundary stone has been updated (as of yesterday) with the correct location: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1132263

It was previously incorrect, which was probably the cause of the incorrect location being added to OSM (by someone blindly copying NHLE entries).

No problem :) geograph.org.uk is a great tool for this kind of thing for questions in the UK, if you need to use it in future (and appropriately licensed so it’s OK to use in OSM)

Hi, are you sure Lancaster Motorhomes and Caravans no longer does sales, only rentals? Their website seems to be entirely about sales.

I merged this with the boundary stone node on the road, based on geograph evidence and the official list entry in the National Heritage List for England.

osm.org/changeset/169243583

If this is wrong, and you’ve surveyed it, and the boundary stone really is inside a barn, then please revert my edit.

Otherwise please double-check what you’re doing when you make edits. It seems really unlikely that a boundary stone would actually be inside a barn.

If you’re going to use AI to help with doing building outlines, could you please check what it produces before you submit it? There’s some pretty weird stuff going on in the middle of all these buildings.

I’ve fixed it in osm.org/changeset/169218146

Heya, thanks for your updates to the priory. You deleted the electric bike charging socket — was that intentional? Does the priory no longer have electric bike charging for customers? Thanks :)

Heya, thanks for your edits recently. :) Did you know that you can press the ‘Q’ key to automatically square the corners of buildings when you add them? It makes regular buildings easier to draw.

Please also note that you should align the aerial imagery with the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels overlay (in the ‘Background Settings’ panel on the right in the editor) before editing, to account for parallax errors in the imagery. The error can be 0-3m in both dimensions and varies from village to village, so it’s important to get the offset right.

Happy to answer any questions you might have about this :) Happy editing!

I thought it would be something like that! Hope you’re well :)

This apartment block now has identical values for addr:housenumber and addr:flats, is that intentional?

Hah, yes, I can see how that could happen. Thanks for fixing it

(For anyone else who reads this, it was fixed in osm.org/changeset/168764186)

leisure=outdoor_seating outdoor_seating=yes doesn’t make any sense.

Why make this change?