Good work! Was wondering when we could get that done.

(The standard map shows a few "bike store" named buildings. Might be neater to use "bike store" as description rather than name.)

Excellent, thanks for the prompt work!

Hi, thanks for the answer. I've just walked down to the site to look. The pub is still there and looks operational. It's been about 3-4 months since I went in it, but I'm in touch with local groups and I would definitely have heard if it had shut. (I know about the planning applications, there's one which is for the pub car park not the pub itself.) Also, the "Merchant Walk" site is a building site, a long way from completion.

What I propose to do is: use the reverter plugin to reinstate the pub and its building; make space for it by reshaping the top of your Merchants Way area; redesignate the Merchants Way area as landuse=construction. Sounds OK?

Hi @peregrination - it looks like you made a mistake here, you've deleted the Widow's Son pub at the North end, which is a listed building and is still there. How do we fix this? I think the edit needs reverting.

No, but the MPIO does not fit the meaning of landuse=commercial, neither in my commonsense understanding, nor the wiki description: "Use tag landuse=commercial to delineate areas of land used for commercial purposes." This land is NOT used for commercial purposes, so I recommend we do not use the tag.

I'm not happy with landuse=commercial, when the institute is not commercial: it is state-funded. It is _much_ stranger in my opinion to tag the site as if it was commercial than if it was a university. It implies the wrong affordances. The rest I am OK with.

I like amenity=research_institute, and would support tagging it that way, although I notice it's even less established than landuse=institutional !

landuse=institutional?

Hi. I am not German so I don't know what the best tagging for a Max-Planck-Institut is. It teaches PhDs but I think it is not officially a university?

Also you are right, it is not landuse=residential. This should be changed. (People DO live there, but only in the guesthouse.)

(I didn't change those tags myself, but it'd be good to tag it right!)

Ah - I was intending to upload my edits piecewise, but in this upload I accidentally uploaded all my remaining edits for the area, so the changeset comment is a bit inaccurate. All edits are intended tho.

Thanks for this, good mapping of this area

Hi - thanks for contributing! I noticed that some of the objects you added were buildings, but you hadn't marked them as buildings. In iD you need to choose one of the building types from the list on the left. I've tweaked these now.

@rfuegen OK, thanks for the info. no complaint from me

2 ways and 13 nodes is not a big edit. For such a small amount of objects, please could @SomeoneElse critique the CONTENT of the changes rather than trying to bring the heavy weight of Mechanical Edits Policy down on it? (I ask this irrespective of whether MEP is pertinent here.) It seems to me that the number of objects is so small that the problem here - if there is indeed a problem of content - is not "mechanical edit" but "armchair edit" (here I'm presuming @rfuegen did not visit all those places!)

Just been round Totley, so I'm updating a couple of features. Good mapping around here already though, lots of accurate detail - thanks Meersbrook!

Hi Roger - thanks for your edits! I'd just like to point out that this long East-West road is not a "track" - if you zoom out in the aerial imagery you can see it's a moderately significant part of the road network. I'll tweak the tagging of this road. Thanks!

Alex, thanks for your edits! A bit of feedback: I wouldn't use "track" for a road in the middle of town connecting a building to the main road. I've tweaked the road to be "residential".

More info about road tagging: osm.wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa

Hi Cat, thanks for your edits! I'm validating this now. Just one note: there are a couple of paths here which look like they meet the highway. I would therefore have connected the path to the highway - I think you probably chose not to because of the slight imagery offset with the highway. I've joined them up. Thanks

Good mapping! I've just validated this, all looks good.

Hi John - thanks for your edits! I just noticed that in this changeset, there are two bodies of water which are marked with water=* tags, but they also need to be marked with natural=water. I have made this change myself now, so no worries, just letting you know.