Hi jackespie,

What’s your justification for deleting objects (for example a path) that had some detail (like surface and width) and replacing (for this example) with just the one basic footway tag? Why didn’t you modify what was already there? The route of the path in one location is even less accurate than it was before.

You’ve also deleted perfectly good and detailed objects and not replaced them. You may like to use OSM History Viewer or some other graphic tool to visualise for yourself the extent of what you’ve done.

This changeset involves 515 nodes and 23 ways - the vast majority being deletions - but your description of the changes is simply “made changes to marlborough park” which rather hides the severity of what you’ve done.

Apart from the time I’m already spending on this, I now have to locate my previous notes, tracks and photos and modify what you’ve done, add details back in and add other objects back in too. I guess it will be quicker than asking you to revert, but please let me know if you’ll do so.

Other contributors’ objects have also been affected. This may all be one big accident, but at the moment I can’t see how that could have happened. I’m hoping you can enlighten me on the circumstances of this changeset but I’m also left wondering what you may have done elsewhere.

Regards,
motogs

Hi carlwev,
I'm intrigued by Node #9624383075 too (in addition to Way #1033900860). No-one I've spoken to has heard of the name Mayplace being used for this area. I've lived within a mile of this location for over 40 years. The building May Place was more than a couple of hundreds of yards away but is demolished and no longer visible. Can you say what led you to believe the area is called by this name, whether there are any historic or current publications referring to it, or whether there are any other verifiable sources?

Hi carlwev,
I'm intrigued by the addition of way 1033900860 named Three Corner Wood. The area comprises people's back gardens and railway embankment. No-one I've spoken to has heard of this name. I've lived within a mile of this location for over 40 years. Can you say where you got the name from and whether there are any historic or current publications referring to it, or whether there are any other verifiable sources?

Hi DaveGeog,
Thanks for coming back so quickly.
I did wonder if you'd find an inconsistency with anything I've done! I'm sure there's lots that aren't right and I'm always happy to have that pointed out. I'll do a search for any 'track' tags I've created and change them, as I regard that tag as a mistake for this type of highway. The one in the changeset you refer to that appears as though I created it was actually split from a longer existing way (in the Shuttle Riverway" relation) but I didn't delete the existing tagging. The 'track' tags in the other ways on that changeset were also created by others. I'm generally loath to make changes without going back to the originator.
I only really mentioned this one as an aside while I was mentioning the overgrowth problem.
I'll look for other 'track' tags for highways local to me and consider whether to change them.
Cheers,
motogs

Hi DaveGeog,
I see that it was just 6 or 7 weeks ago that you created way 967021899.
I tried to walk along it on Saturday from the SW end but NE from the rear of No.120 was completely overgrown, and I had to turn back.
I didn’t approach from the northerly corner of the way, but I could see from Harborough Avenue that the whole of the SE-NW section was clear for 2-track vehicles.
On a slightly different note, you may feel that highway=track
osm.wiki/Track
is inappropriate and that highway=service, service=alley
osm.wiki/Tag:service%3Dalley
is more suitable.
If you agree, let me know if you’ll make the changes or if you’d like me to do it.
Cheers,
motogs

With over two weeks having passed and with no response or correction, I'll be changing this back to the correct layout and tagging at the New Road/Woolwich Road junction, and will also add further detail.

Hi tdtruong,

Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits. Hopefully you’ll be able to contribute more over time.

The area at the junction of New Road and Woolwich Road can certainly be given more detail, but I’d just like to comment a little on what you’ve done here.

There is a pair of gates for emergency access which you’ve deleted and you’ve moved the cycle routes from the gaps designed for them on either side of the gates to the ends of the fence. You may want to have another look at that, so that the entrances are within it, either side of the emergency access gates, as it was shown previously.

You now show the entrances at the end of the metal fence and the one at the east end is tagged entrance=yes. The tag barrier=entrance was correct as it’s used for a gap in a linear way, not for an entrance to an enclosed area, which is where entrance=yes is used. Please see
osm.wiki/Key:entrance and
osm.wiki/Key:barrier

You’ve shown a designated bicycle crossing next to the existing zebra crossing when there isn’t one.
In the absence of more specific tags, on a road the existence of pavements is implied. By all means add them explicitly, but if you do they should connect with another highway (by which I include footway) if they’re not dead-ends. The north end of the crossing you added doesn’t connect with anything.

As you’re local you may like to go and have another look. I pass the location frequently by car and sometimes by bike, though I’m not within easy walking distance.

I hope this is of help and encouragement. There’s a lot to learn for all of us, but particularly when starting! I hope your foray into editing OSM sparks your interest in doing more.

Kind regards,
motogs

Just for info, the offset I applied was 6.87; -1.64. I forgot to include this in the source.

Thanks Mike. My slip. The way is now corrected to barrier=bollard, representing a line of bollards. (Was highway=bollard.)

I don't know how I came to do that! Thanks for pointing it out mapboxdan. These short sections either side of cycle barriers clearly aren't cycleways, so I've gone for your suggestion of =path (despite its current controversy on the tagging list) and added bicycle=designated.

Hi ramthelinefeed,
I think you’re referring to relation 232039 created and given the name "Shuttle to Cray Link" by UrbanRambler in Sept 2009.
So that I could add tags to a section of one of its members with details not relevant to the rest of it I split the way, which created way 751605531 with all the existing tags, giving the appearance that I created the name tag.
I think your comments should therefore be addressed to UrbanRambler.
I believe this is not an officially-named route. If this is the case, then I agree the name tag should be deleted.
I have no problem with the existence of the relation though and maybe there should be a note tag on the relation to explain the route is a suitable link between official routes.
As an aside, in looking at this I saw that route relation 236878 ("Cray Riverway") was broken at this location, so I’ve fixed that.
Regards,
motogs

Hi Mike, and thanks for your suggestion. Yes, I agree with you and I've changed it to highway=road as it didn't look disused to me when I saw it. Though still vague (but helped by the other tags) it's at least better than highway=yes.
Regards,
motogs

This changeset description should say "Added houses and other buildings" instead of what it does say.

Hi MGSpiller,
I’ve been adding/developing objects in Slaithwaite for a while, and although in many cases I’ve added premises numbers and names, in most of those I hadn’t got as far as adding the village or street names.
I see that you’ve been adding these in a number of cases, so many thanks for that - it saves me having to go back and do that!
You’ve added a number of addr:hamlet=Slaithwaite tags and I see that I’ve added at least one myself (way No.465925686).
As Slaithwaite is rather bigger than a hamlet (see osm.wiki/Tag:place%3Dhamlet), having a population of getting on for 3,000, would you be happy for me to change all the occurrences of addr:hamlet=Slaithwaite (including from other changesets) to addr:village=Slaithwaite? Although addr:village isn’t specifically mentioned in the wiki, it’s used over 100,000 times.
I didn’t want to do this without discussing with you first.
Cheers, motogs

Hi MacLondon, and thanks for your reply.

If I understand correctly, when you split a way, the history is only retained with the part of the way that retains the same identity, and the part of the way with a new identity doesn’t carry the history. This would explain what happened and resolves one of my queries.

I realise that everything including deletions is registered and retained, but I have difficulty finding information.

For example, I haven’t yet been able to find where the original way 237853111 is referenced by the new way that’s created from the old one.
I know it’s there somewhere, so I’ll try and work out how to follow the trail back.

I guess I’ll then need to find how to open the way history from that reference number.

Jumping these steps by using the link you provided for the history of way 237853111 I’m then finding problems using the information in the way history in OSM - but I am making some progress. I’ll also spend a bit of time to try and work out if this history is visible in JOSM.

I can see now that the quietway leaves and then re-joins the footway further on and that it is indeed continuous – sorry for that.

I’d be interested to know which footway I deleted, so I’ll see if I can work out how to find it. There may well be more than one. I haven’t yet learned how I can leave an explanation if I delete something with good reason, so I probably didn’t leave one. As with a lot of OSM I’m making slow progress working these things out bit by bit without compromising progress with developing the map data.

Please don’t feel obliged to respond to this.

Regards,
motogs

Hi MacLondon,
Can you let me know what happened to the history of the way that cycleway 566546111 (created by this changeset 56892334) replaced last week? It seems the tagging’s been transferred over, but I’m unable to compare it with what was there before. I understood that replacing (rather than changing) ways and nodes was frowned on in the OSM community unless the history was transferred too. Or is this the same way as before and the history for some reason isn’t visible to me in JOSM?
Can you help me by explaining what you’ve done please?
I see also that the connecting footway 238240767 has been left in place virtually as it was, resulting in a discontinuity of the Greenwich to Bexleyheath Quietway.
Regards,
motogs

Thanks for your help on this. I think motor_vehicle=destination would be fairly appropriate though not strictly accurate. I considered access =discouraged but there's no signage (yet) to support this.

Hi @GerdP, your guess is correct. The local post van uses the road frequently, but it's virtually unused by any other vehicle. The car park (at one end) and the Manor House (at the other) are each served by other highways. None of the usual values - including 'service' - seem appropriate for this road. After giving it further thought, and trying to use a more common value, I'm proposing to change the value to 'residential'. It is, after all, in an area that most people would regard as residential.
The road is unsuitable and unnecessary for normal traffic. There's a danger that even with the values 'residential' or 'service', routing software will use this as a through-way. Please let me know if can think of a way to tag this road to better reflect its nature.
Thanks for your comments.

Hi @lindawoo
Welcome to OSM, and any developments you can make to the map are welcome. However, in July you appear to have created additional ways west of Marsden using the nodes of existing ways, and also in the process added the odd node to some of the existing ways. I realise you were probably feeling your way a bit, but I'm proposing to delete the duplicate ways, especially as they have no tags and are therefore meaningless. Can I point you in the direction of http://learnosm.org/en/ for help in getting going? All help is very welcome.
Cheers
@motogs

Hi GerdP,
Thanks for raising this. Yes, both tags should of course be highway=footway and I'll correct them now. I did these 5 months ago and have more experience now! Neither path led anywhere on the map, but this is an area I know very well and have used the steps many times. On the ground the ways connect to the footpath alongside the carriageway (notice the bus stops). I can see though that one of the paths connects to the westbound carriageway on the map when it should connect to the eastbound one. I'll change that now too. Now that I've come back to this area of map I can see that there are a number of other things that need improving, so I'll come back and see to these some time in the future.
Thanks for your feedback.