Incidentally, although I'm not sure that that is my mapping, I think the roads at the very West side are adopted. That is the three links to Watford Road and the section between the first and third of them. It is difficult to verify on the ground. I think the only way of doing so, without resorting to council data, may be to look at the style of the lamp columns, although I've had the council accept responsibility for repairing the pavement on the middle link road. The intent may well be to try to get improved parts of the ring road adopted, on the basis that it will service the new social housing. although social housing roads are often private, so that might not happen.

There have been a lot of changes since this changeset was submitted. A whole new social housing estate is being built on the site, car parks have been closed, and new ones built, bus stops have been moved and bus routes changed. Parts of the ring road have been upgraded, and converted to two way working. A&E hadn't moved (to the building at the bottom right) at that time.

It really needs re-surveying, but, for the last year, the road layout changed every week, so it didn't seem worth attempting until things have stabilised.

I think the specific area you referred to is near the theatre admissions unit, and I had been a patient there in 2013.

I think the MRI unit would have been in a portakabin. I think there is more than one around the site. and in the main buildings.

Even if it did, I cannot imagine any valid airport would have "(not precise TBD)" as part of its official name. This appears to violate Name is only the Name, which I commented on before.

"release into public domain" does trigger red flags, as it is generally not possible except by the passage of time, or if you are the US federal government, and the latter only within the USA. It tends to indicate someone who doesn't understand intellectual property rights.

I'm assuming this was submitted by Pater Page who owns the database rights on those parts of Coventry Maps which aren't OS Open Data, and therefore the licensing is sound, even though the man Coventry Maps page gives a licence that is incompatible with OSM (no commercial use).

However I noticed the tag suspected:designation=public_footpath, on a path at the back of some houses that only seems to service those houses. Such paths are normally access=private, and either owned by the property developer, or to the halfway line, by the bordering properties.

Typically there is an easement for each bordering house allowing it to be used only to access the grounds of that house.

When entering an address, the different parts should go under different tags; only the name of the street should go in addr:street; the city should go in addr:city, the country also has its own tag, as do postal codes, and house numbers.

Again, I don't know to what extent the real fault is with maps.me, but I'd suggest that maps.me is not the best first mapping tool for OSM. It may be useful for an experienced mapper, who needs a lightweight tool, on the road.

Whilst I can't verify the restaurants. HotTug is certainly not real. It's address is not in a correct form, and it is probably more than mile from the E1 postcode that is claimed, and has been mapped in the middle of the road. (Currently mapped near Charing Cross underground station.)

I am probably going to delete it as clearly wrong.

There is also no indication of the nature of the "attraction". Web searches suggest it may be a specialist boat hire service, rather than an attraction.

Whilst the problem may be with maps.me. rather than the user, the changeset comment really needs more detail.

Are you sure that "PAREXEL LAB" is actually named like that on the signs. Also, something called a lab is unlikely to be a clinic.

I'm not sure the main Parexel site is a clinic either, as their claim to fame was drug research, not medical care.

Also, "Orthodox Church" seems unlikely to be the name on the signs for the place of worship. Almost certainly the correct name is that currently given as name:el. If the only name is not in English that should still be used, even for buildings in England. There is a principle that name is only the name, so you should not use the name to get the words you want onto rendered maps.

This place of worship has no religion or denomination. Naming it as Orthodox Church does not make a Christian, Greek Orthodox, church; you need to provide the specific meta data.

Also, it is confusing to have unrelated items, in unrelated places, in one changeset.

There is a fall-back mechanism for opening/service hours, where you can use free text in quotation marks. The disadvantage is that automated tools cannot determine whether or not the building is open.

The full specification includes dawn, dusk, sunrise and sunset, although doesn't rigorously define them. They also allow you to specify offsets from those times.

If the religious rules are more complex than can be fitted into that model, but are consistent throughout the world, it might be worth proposing additional special values for time of day. I'm not sure where you would propose them, but you could see if anyone on the Questions forum could give you a pointer. Normally one would just start using a value, but opening times already has the double quotes mechanism and the tools that evaluate the times would not want to have to cope with lots of new values being created in the field.

I think it is also generally weak, at the moment on lunar calendar festivals; it only knows about Easter.

Thanks for trying to enter service times, but there is a special syntax for this tag that allows the times to be machine parsed. See osm.wiki/Key:opening_hours

Also, there is a distinction between service and opening times. When the building is locked should be reflected in opening times, not service times. This uses the same basic syntax.

Also, it is unlikely that it is possible to plot an accurate outline of the building just from local knowledge, so the original Bing source should be retained. You can separate multiple sources using ";".

A couple of things to note are that most of what the general public call mosques, in the UK, actually use Masjid in their official name. Are you sure this is signed as Mosque, not Masjid? Also, most also have the name in Arabic, so, if you are able to transcribe Arabic, it would be useful to add a name:ar tag. If the building is only signed in Arabic, that should be used for the primary name tag.

There is a rule in OSM that a "name is only a name". You should not use the name field to describe something. In particular, you hsould not call something "Housing under Construction".

It is up to individual renderers to decide whether to interpret the actual tagging and, if appropriate to their purpose, render descriptive text.

The "do not tag for the render" rule is also relevant. You should not map to produce a particular result on some particular rendering of the map.

The key point is that there is nothing on the ground (although just recently, some grass has been left long at the edges, and you can see the trampling, near the bridge). Also, the chances are that the path doesn't match the historic right of way.

However, in my experience, the most common weekday route from that bridge is the direct line to Northwick Park Station, with a lsoe second being the direct one to the back entrance to the hospital car park (which looks to be wrongly marked public).

At weekends the use of sports pitches can make the direct station routes problematic, and one either skirts round them to the East or does join Proyer's Path a lot further South.

Weekend users may be heading for the pavilion, but I don't use it at that time, and I suspect they use a line across the rugby pitch

osm.org/way/294543496 and the other paths through the pedestrian area to the South of Northwick Park Station do not exist beyond the South edge of that area.

If your router fails to route across the pedestrian area, please raise that as a bug with the router developers. Do not "tag for the renderer".

Also note that, in this specific case, the surface is also wrong. The surface of the pedestrian area is block paving.

I'm wondering if this is actually surveyed as Bing has old imagery, for this location, which does show a physical presence for these path sections, and armchair mapping could have created an error.

Again, what is the source for this footpath. It is not visible on the ground (so would need trail_visibility setting). The PROW is only signed on the far side of the railway bridge and not at all at the Proyer's Path end. I'm not aware that Brent have released their definitive map.

osm.org/way/528905704 is transient. It doesn't exist now because it is cricket season, and there is a cricket pitch there. It doesn't exist in the current Bing imagery, but that has about five pitches nearby that are not mapped.

I suspect if I checked carefully that these pitches move from year to year.

I don't think it is useful to map it. I will check it the next time I go across the park and remove it if there are no, or faded, marking.

Please see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=699601#p699601

It sounds like a description to me. Whilst the council database has it in a name field, I think it is just because that is the only field where they could fit it. The fact that they have several sites with exactly the same "name" would make it fairly useless as a name.

I would also question whether it is even accurate as a description, given that basketball isn't normally played on ice.

Please use a lifecycle prefix for proposed features, rather than the undocumented state key. osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

The source appears to be a copyright map. Please find a source that has an explicit licence that is compatible with OSM, or wait until it is signposted on the ground. (I don't believe that Brent has seriously considered an open data policy.)

I very much doubt that "Proposed" is part of the name, and suspect that it doesn't actually have a name at all, in the same way that LCN 45 doesn't have one.

When reverting changes, please:

1) include the changeset number of the problem changeset, in the changeset comment, so others can understand why it was done;

2) Re-instate the original object, in this case osm.org/way/255988124/history , rather than re-adding it as a new object, so that the complete update history is maintained. There is a plugin for JOSM that can handle such reversions properly.

3) If possible, give adequate opportunity for the person who made the error to correct it themselves, or explain why it should not be reverted (e.g. it really has gone and the Bing image was out of date). (If you saw it there yourself, very recently, that might justify an immediate restoration.)