It doesn't fit my notion of a meadow, despite the local authority. The OSM wiki page does suggest "mainly used for hay (meadow) or for grazing animals (pasture)", so I think the OSM tag doesn't really fit. It is obviously a fairly deep artificial excavation, and while I also have not seen it with any substantial water, I do think landuse=basin, basin=retention should be the main tags. Or maybe landuse=basin;meadow with basin=retention and meadow=transitional ? Perhaps even natural=grassland instead of meadow, even if the wiki says this excludes wetlands. The standard renderer might want to mark it as water (blue colour) if the main tag was landuse=basin alone, but we don't want to tag for the renderer :-)
If it had both basin and natural=grassland, not sure what the renderer would do.

Of course, we could invent a new tag
just for that, or even add something like water=intermittent.

Is this surgery open again?

I don't think the area to the West of Deer Park Road up to the new Windrush Place is a meadow. Have you been there? It is a flood defence basin. I surveyed this thoroughly many years ago, and pass it fairly often, including a few hours ago. It is usually grassy with a few rushes and scrub, at least when it is dry.

Slightly odd with building=yes?
I do see that you have included St.Mary's itself, but I think that usual semantics is that the whole area is a building.

You are joking about the "heath"s, surely? You surely cannot have visited the area.

I know and have repeatedly surveyed much of this area, and if there was any heath, I would probably have tagged it.

There are no obvious tags for the sort of mixed vegetation and low woodland typical of much of this coast.

Please revert or delete the invented "heaths".

Well it certainly isn't anywhere near this node. It is almost certainly a sign for the Cheesewring Farm Caravan site which has been mapped for many years.

I think that I have done a partial revert, but it is the first time that I have used the reversion tool.

Please comment if it is now OK.

No idea how that happened although I do find that it easy to drag things by mistake in josm. Usually I notice before uploading.

I was surprised that the M4 was so poorly aligned with gps and imagery. I guess most people are a little intimidated by changing such a major road. Perhaps I should have been as well!

Thanks for spotting this!

Do you mean Folly Brook athttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2931735704?

I certainly didn't intend to touch that?

I have just noticed that you have removed these side road names. That is surely wrong!
The address of the houses along these side roads is that of the road of which they are a "part", in this case Burford Road. It is very common in Witney for side roads to share the name with a road from which they branch. I think that this needs reverting. People need to be able to find addresses from road names.

If it is somehow inconvenient for travel line , it is surely a trivial bit of programming to inspect the highway tag when several roads share a name to determine the principal road.

There seem to be some serious errors with disconnected ways. I don't know whether
they were disconnected earlier, but routing
is now failing. I have fixed a couple of cases, but this whole area needs checking

We are going around in circles here. It is precisely because I want an accurate correct database, that I made the provocative comment.

I am very well aware of the distinction between the database and myriad of renderers.

I only disagree a little with @SomeoneElse in that newbies first interaction with OSM is going to be the standard rendering on the main page, and that should not omit properly tagged major features impacting on roads like the bridges in this case.

The decison not to render abandoned railways was a little odd from a UK perspective, but reasonable. But for the renderer to fail to extract the bridges from those ways is a incorrect shortcut IMHO. Andy's renderer presumably does it properly.

Well, I know this is the party line. But it doesn't seem to apply on ordinary roads, for example. And if it is to supercede the bridge tag, then why can it not be applied to ways? Trying to micro map every bridge depends on having very high quality gps or perhaps imagery.

I have a pretty good gps unit, but I would need many traces and a lot of averaging to get a reasonable outline of a typical bridge. That is also a burden on mappers who in most case just have a single gps trace across a bridge. And in many cases won't even have access to the bridge sides.

I will have to live with this, I suppose, but the rendering it is just plain broken as of now.

Andy, if you look at the last paragraph of

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030819.html

you will see that I was trying to advocate OSM to local councillors who could not be expected to do other than look at the "standard map", at least initially.

To anyone who knows the area, the omission of these significant features is ridiculous. A bridge is a bridge is a bridge
regardless of its original purpose. These bridges have been mapped for years, and I think were once rendered before a decision to ignore anything associated with abandoned railways was taken.

I know that was an easy option for the renderer, but it was just plain wrong. The bridge_outline is useful in in its own right, of course, but here is is just used a kludge.

This rather provocative comment was my protest against being *forced* to use a man_made bridge outline when I have already mapped this bridge properly.

This is what I regard as a major bug in standard rendering for abandoned railways. A bridge is still a bridge and should be rendered as such, irrespective of whether it was originally built to carry what is now an abandoned railway.

This problem has been brought up on the tagging list many times in the last few years, but all attempts to get the standard renders to do the right thing have failed.

The "official" way to render these bridges is to "invent" a bridge outline which I regard (in such cases) as tagging for the renderer.

As my source tags say, I know this bridge well, I have many gps traces around it, and several of my own photographs.

I cannot take gps traces on the bridge itself since it is fenced off, and anyway the gps quality is not great because of heavy tree cover, but I have made a reasonable estimate of the width and position from all my ground surveys, photographs and gps.

This edit was prompted after my discussions on the tagging list. See
this thread: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030788.html
and also
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030812.html
and particularly my post here
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030819.html where I am complaining that I am being "forced" to invent by the tagging scheme.

See especially
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030843.html
where Martin Koppenhoefer repeats that this use of man_made=bridge is the right solution.

There is a photograph linked in to
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030847.html
which shows this bridge from a few years ago.

This nonsense needs reverting immediately.

I have only just noticed that The Hurlers are are marked barrier=wall and landuse=meadow.
Both are quite wrong. See http://www.readingthehurlers.co.uk/ for current investigations.

The Hurlers have never been a wall except perhaps in prehistory and the landuse is something like "moor" or "moorland", although I don't see the point of this tag here.

I know this area well and will delete or correct this when I am next around the stones with my gps. It seems worth while mapping the individual stones with gps waypoints.

You have missed the cricket pitches which I know to exist from when I am passing the Sports Ground. There are also mini-soccer pitches according to the Town Council Website. I suppose that I might do a gps survey of the pitches one day if it happens to cross my mind when I am free.

I have just noticed areas near Minions which are now marked a "heath". I have local knowledge and I do not think any of these areas generally fit the description of heath.

Looks like a typo in "Rutherford fo(r)lds" ?

Footway rather than path. Source is not Bing or Mapbox. It was gps. Surveyed a long time ago, I think before the fish pass was built. Needs checking. It was always a rather informal crossing and probably impossible when water high, so possible flood_prone tag might be sensible. Really needs resurvey, but when weather is better...