Hi, this changeset removed place=island from Maîtresse Île, was that intentional?

Hi! Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap. You requested a review on your changeset so I have had a look. You changed access=destination for this road to access=private. access=destination is for when the only people allowed to walk or drive down the road are visitors trying to reach the school, e.g. to drop off a child or to make a delivery. Access=private is for when walking or driving down this road is only possible by permission (e.g. if it's only for staff).

I noticed that the southern part of the road at osm.org/way/5324370 is not marked as private. Should it be marked as private too?

Just to let you know I've changed this to a specific tag for splash pads (playground=splash_pad), hope that's OK!

I have written code to find islands (areas with place=island or =islet) within water bodies (areas with natural=water) where the island lies entirely within the water body, so the water body should be a multipolygon, when it isn't. This is for the challenge I described in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/invisible-islands/108127.

Unfortunately the library that I used says the island (692587227) is “within” the river area with ID 854475224, which it isn’t: it’s between two river areas, so it's not inside either of them. So this island should never have appeared in my Maproulette challenge. I’ve reported this as a bug (https://github.com/clarisma/geodesk-py/issues/57), and once it gets fixed (the developers are usually really quick), I should be able to identify and exclude all affected cases from the MR challenge. I’ll also review those that have already been marked as “fixed” to make sure the edits are correct.

Hi, could you have a look at this note please?
osm.org/note/4209470

I've been looking at this map which was in the edi.bike newsletter, it's a great visualisation of the OSM cycle path data in Edinburgh https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1780187384266588494.html

Thanks! That was a lot of really useful information. Based on the email I have updated the tags for the sections here.

Here is the link for the water multipolygon: https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/17061996

I made this Maproulette challenge, and I am commenting here because SomeoneElse asked me to clarify the instructions.

Trying to figure out what happened here. The challenge shows users islands that are likely to be submerged, because someone drew a way inside a water body, tagged it place=island, and didn't make it a member of the surrounding water body.

osm.org/way/692587227 is a bit odd: it doesn't need to be an 'inner' to the surrounding water body because it's between two water bodies (osm.org/way/854475224 and osm.org/way/854475223), so adding it to the MP will make it invalid.

I can add this scenario to the instructions, asking mappers to leave such examples alone.

However, in this case it looks like a bit more went wrong: The place=islet tag should normally remain on the island, but in this case it was removed from the island (https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/692587227) and added to the water multipolygon (https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/692587227).
@huozhe: do you think there is anything else that could be improved about the instructions to make them better?

At least in my city the convention is essentially that a POI node represents a shopfront (though the nodes typically duplicate the address tags). When the shop closes, we mark it as disused. When it reopens, we update the tags.

While it's closed, StreetComplete, Every Door etc. will regularly ask their users if someone new has moved into the vacant unit, so keeping the node around is practically useful, it encourages resurveying.

If the building is demolished or the shop unit converted to residential, we of course delete the node.

See also osm.org/note/4183207

Hi, I guess the deletion of osm.org/way/762653925/ was accidental?

Yes, please don't delete shops just because they are closed :-)

Hi, is landuse=village_green really the correct tag here? See also osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dvillage_green

I’m worried that if we just leave it as highway=path with no other tags, outdoor apps will show it to people as a normal path that anyone can walk when you actually need experience and equipment and lots of preparation. At the very least we should put an appropriate sac_scale value, but I don’t know what would be the right value because I haven’t been there!

Or maybe a tag like route=mountaineering would be more appropriate, instead of highway=path?

Thanks. I still have my GPX file from when I walked to Langshisa Kharka so I know how far I mapped it as sac_scale=hiking at the time. But what tags should go on the new section over the pass? Looking at a walk report (https://www.thetrekblog.com/blog/2018/11/13/tillman-pass-nepal-langtang) I’m not sure that all of it can even be called a path. Have you been there?

Hi, you have tagged Tilman's pass as sac_scale=hiking, trail_visibility=excellent. This was an accident I presume? Looking at the history of the way osm.org/way/342432187/history, you added the whole length of Tilman’s pass to an existing path segment that previously only covered a small length of path in Langshisha Kharka (which I tagged as sac_scale=hiking).

Welcome to Edinburgh. It's meant to be two way now, but they forgot to burn off the no entry markings and to remove the sign that tells cyclists to cross and rejoin the carriageway. The Council are "continuing to investigate the safest and most practical way to remove" the no entry markings.

It used to look like this, with a left turn to cross and rejoin the carriageway:
https://twitter.com/CyclingAndyC/status/1684967512297938944

Now it looks like this, with a kerb blocking the left turn:
https://twitter.com/LeithFeederRide/status/1752633287141392647/photo/4

See also https://twitter.com/oldscotbooks/status/1752658019387687037

You changed landuse=construction to amenity=school, am I right that the construction is finished so construction=school can also be removed?

For more background see here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/should-coastlines-create-a-closed-polygon/109239

Oops thanks for spotting that!