The spellings of 2 stops corrected in changeset 165472874 following survey and photos

Also Mapbox satellite, adjusted to align with Inspire cadastral data

I forgot to include source: Survey, own photos

Hi @tomhukins,
Thanks for adding detail to shops in Slaithwaite. Unfortunately 2 of them are the wrong way round, so this is just to let you know I'll be correcting them. (Bottomley's is the newsagent and Hadley's is the sandwich outlet, though this has very recently gone out of business, so I'll reflect that as well)
Happy mapping in the New Year!
motogs

Hi Hugh24,
I was surprised to learn that the boardwalk, Way #159712212 at the George Washington hide had been removed within about a year of my walking along it. Can you let me know when you visited and found it gone please?
Regards,
motogs

In the absence of a response I'm deleting the place=village + name=Bopeep node (9417748176)

Can you say what led you to believe there's a village here (where Hewitts Road, Hollybush Lane, Maypole Road and Shoreham Lane all meet) and that it's called Bopeep? There's a pub by that name - a separate object - but that's just about all.

Oops! Thanks for correcting.

I omitted to mention the source for the UUIDs; it was The Circuit via Robert Whittaker's AED tool. I understand these data alone from their database are permitted by the BHF.

I omitted to mention the source for the UUIDs; it was The Circuit via Robert Whittaker's AED tool. I understand these data alone from their database are permitted by the BHF.

You've moved a gate onto a designated right of way (as stated by contributor Gyrwa) and added the tags private and locked. I think this may have been inadvertent, and if so, could you correct it please. Alternatively if you'd like to explain what you intended I may be able to help you out.
Please also see my comments to your changeset 140316855 which you made 2 hours earlier.

Welcome to the OSM community.
4 years ago I walked down some concrete steps and along a path to the river. I added the steps and path onto the database, but you've stated they're no longer there. Are you sure about this?
I also see that on a different changeset you've moved a gate onto a designated right of way (as stated by contributor Gyrwa) and added the tags private and locked.
It occurs to me that the path may be private (as I stated at the time) and that you're somehow associated with it, as the only edits you (as oldreds) have ever made are these. If this is the case I'm happy to show the path as private (just as private driveways are dealt with).
I'll respond separately to your changeset 140323149 about the locked gate across the public footpath.
Please let me know how you see things so that we can get this right.

Way 535507185 which you created in 2017 in this changeset (53256825) has the tag: "source_ref=Collins Nicolson Greater London Street Atlas".
Is this source out of copyright now or has it always been open source with an appropriate licence?
If neither, would you delete the name please or provide an alternative source.

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