Not a problem Mark, and welcome to OSM! I've made my suggested edits to the pillbox tags in changeset 149796231.

Hi M4rkle, thanks for your recent edits in this area. Just a couple of thoughts about osm.org/way/323111404

You don't need to add building=bunker because there's already abandoned:building=bunker. This uses the lifecycle prefix (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix) to indicate that the bunker isn't currently in use.

I clearly had a brain fart with bunker_type=gun_emplacement, would you agree that bunker_type=pillbox is more appropriate?

All the best,
Matt

A conversation at osm.org/changeset/89790560 highlighted that some localities were being used for the purpose of showing bridge names on the standard map. This CS moves the information to the bridge with an appropriate tag.

No problem, I've reverted in osm.org/changeset/147034289

Hi Dan, you have split way 1041817380 into two and combined both parts into a multipolygon. What was your intention with this changeset?

True, but just to check: the name for 387215767 has been tagged "Welcross" but the Grange is definitely "Wellcross". Is there a reason for the different name, or is the airstrip a typo?

Hi Martin, relation 4510978 is a residential building for students at Christ's Hospital school. I don't think building=house is an improvement on what was there before.

Sidewalk=yes removed in osm.org/changeset/141839125

Hi Yavotch,

Did you mean to tag osm.org/way/613856695 with sidewalk=yes?

Thanks Dan. Unfortunately, putting localities in OSM just to render the name on the standard map is marked as inappropriate on the wiki, as it's a clear case of tagging for the renderer: osm.wiki/Tag:place=locality

For example, the "Useful Maps" render does show the bridge's name, making the locality obsolete. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#21/51.06113/-0.33521/H

It's best to think of OSM as a database first. There are hundreds of methods to view the information contained within, and the Standard map is just one of those views.

I've created an overpass query that shows all the localities that you have added with "Bridge" in the name that are near a named bridge . Can you review these and remove any localities that aren't needed?
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1yQd

Thanks,
Matt

Hi Dan,

I'm not sure what value there is in adding a bunch of localities for bridges, doubly so considering that most already have a bridge with the same name in the vicinity. Can you remember why you added these?

All the best, Matt.

Hi UtterClutter,

It looks like something's gone wrong with this changeset, as the same note has been added to all houses. Also, is the note really relevant information to be added to OSM?

All the best,
Matt

No worries, happy cycling! :)

Hi Trevor, and welcome to OSM!

The Hornbrook Inn is already mapped (osm.org/way/60582413). What were you trying to add with your edit?

I've removed the tags as they are duplicating data.

Matt

Hi Matt,

La Piazetta has already been mapped. osm.org/node/500015826

I've removed the duplicate node and added your tags to the original one.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126564961

Hi PeterMapit,
I think node 9577581011 has a typo in the name - should it be Honeywell?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118466636

Hi Martin,
I passed by this area today and now I'm afraid I'm even less convinced by your assertion. There's shared cycle/footway signs on each end of the bridge that have not changed since before the road was closed off to motor traffic and clearly (to my mind) route along the deleted ways. One *could* use sidewalk:left:bicycle=yes for way 180730791, but not on way 431216816 as there is a grass verge in between. Therefore I think it's clearer and closer to reality to have the separate ways as they were before. I'll revert the deletion.
All the best,
Matt

Hi Martin,
Thanks for clarifying, although I don't 100% agree. There has been a signed cycleway across the bridge next to the road since before it was closed to general traffic. When the road was closed this didn't change (the sign is still there), and they even put a grass verge in between the pavement and the road up to the bridge on the eastern side, making it more separate than it was before the closure.

No worries about the tree, I've reinstated it.

Hi Martin, I'm wondering why you removed the shared cycleway (ways 681997657 and 830139646)? Also curious why you removed the tree (node 4856064270) as it's also still there.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115957729

Reverted in changeset 111788075.