Hiya -

Just wanted to note that you can use the "OSMUK Cadastral Parcels" overlay layer in ID to get the boundaries of railway land, and trace them directly. The "OSMUK Cadastral Parcels" data is sourced from the land registry, and 'perfectly' aligned, and expressly permitted as a source for OSM.

But that's armchair mapping, so if you know it's actually open from a recent survey, feel free to revert.

Hi there - I think Corpus Christi College is closed permanently. It does not appear on http://apps.education-ni.gov.uk/appinstitutes/showinstitution.aspx unless you use the advanced search to allow 'CLOSED' institutions. I've added the school building, the deniirn reference number (123-0262) and marked the amenity as disused.

Thanks Jakob- that's what I get for copy/pasting an error!

That tagging and taxonomy makes sense to me for 1) and 2). But what's the difference in real-life feature that distinguishes 1) from 3)?

Thanks for your response. I think you're right that my uneasiness stems from the fact that the default osm.org presentation doesn't distinguish cycleways that are unfriendly to pedestrians with those that are perfectly well shared. I always think it's a pity to see nice paths for strolling turning 'blue' for that reason. The 'Map Key' of the right hand side just says BLUE MEANS BIKES, and reasonable people looking at osm.org would assume that these paths are off-limits to walkers as a result. Perhaps I'll get motivated to propose some changes to the renderer for cases like this.

The intent was to have a building and a restaurant, the building contains more than just the restaurant and is (I think?) mostly residential (or maybe it's offices?). So I was aiming to have an area for the restaurant, within the building. The building has all the physical attributes, like the number of levels. But I messed up and left an amenity=restaurant on the "building-only" area. I'll remove it shortly and close your note.

This changeset swaps highway=footway to highway=cycleway for many ways. In some cases with foot access tagging, in others without. Was that the intent? Is there a source for this change - in-person and on the ground these ways feel more like footways open to bikes, than cycleways open to pedestrians.

Done - via changeset 114099728.

For the old pub and old courthouse in this changeset, I'm minded to set them to building=pub, building:use=residential (since it is visibly a pub building); and similar for the old courthouse, now used as a church. Any objection?

Thanks!

Thanks for this and your other recent correction. Can I ask - how do you spot them? I use Osmose, but it did not identify either of these (and it has issued me some false positives too). Is there a tool you use?

Note that Great Eastern Road is signed as being part of C2, toward Bow - sign at Unresolved note #2860161

Right, so it's the presence of a postcode on tbe building that drives the exceptions on mathmos. Understood, and I agree with your suggestion.

When I'm adding doors-with-addresses, I'll remove postcodes from the building if it's across multiple streets.

Hi eastender. I just wanted to pick your brain on the allocation of addr:streets to buildings that face onto multiple streets and contain addresses with multiple streets - like w964080374. You've made it part of Stratford Road in this changeset. But it also has addresses on Maud Road. Do you have a reason to add addr:street to the building, and what's your criteria for choosing which street? (Interested because I've been adding a lot of surveyed address data in this area, and I could try to apply your criteria as I go) - regards, Ken

Great, thanks. When I last passed it, they didn't seem to be 100% open. But they seemed to be recruiting for a zero-waste type of operation. I'll look out for the yes / only distinction next time I'm there. Probably within the month.

Thanks! On my way out last night, I noticed that the banners on Great Eastern Road have changed from "coming soon" to "now open", so it's all lined up!

Is it open then? Brilliant!

Oh yes - so it is. Thanks for getting back to me, and sorry to hassle you.

Hi there - are you sure the roundabout at the Richmond Road/ Hampton Road boundary is really gone? I *think* I remember it being there a few weeks ago, and the 'Bing aerial imagery' you've used as a source for this changeset shows it pretty clearly.