Thanks!

Ah, yes, my mistake. There was a polygon that was being scrub, and a path at the same time. I got rid of that because it was really sketchy, but failed to check to see if it was real. I'm glad you spotted this.

Is there a GIS layer (any format) I can use, with the surveyed data on? Otherwise I can try to figure out a way of using the old data.

I imagine it'll be best to wait until the coastline rendering gets updated before continuing.

Looks like there's similar mapping of river-as-coastline near Burnham-on-Crouch.

I woudn't say this was "easy", by the way. The only reason I noticed the river problems was because I was looking at Map Notes near Berwick, where I used to live. The validator showed me loads of erros on the Cuckmere river. We had the river way crossing the coastline several times, and the administrative boundary glued to the river area at many points: it still is at some points, because it was just too much to bother with last night. Also, paths and bridges were messed up. I'm guessing this is partly because of the historical origins of OSM.

Sure, whatever is the norm for UK river areas. Although if we assume the aerial imagery wasn't offset horrifically, the areas were often not even covering the visible water. I'm not as familiar with UK OSM norms as I am with US norms, and I've not mapped areas of rivers in either country. I'm happy to follow your lead: you've been contributing since 2008, I see.

I accidentally committed the name change to this at the same time as fixing the polygon.

Hi George. Looks like you're running an automated QA tool that is noticing undocumented tags. Well, good quetion. I made these tags up, but haven't yet documented them: partly because I wasn't sure whether it was a good idea to even use them, and wanted to see how I felt about it. Also given that they're specific to the island, I really wasn't sure how much documentation I should bother writing on the OSM Wiki, if any. I've only used them on this one way so far, I think. So "cobi" is for City of Bainbridge Island. I don't work for the city: it's just where I live. And "rdend" is short for "Road End", or to be complete, "Public Road End". That's the phrase the City uses to describe these protected areas on the island that were once or were planned to be roads down to the sea. They're often where ferries used to stop, before more roads inland were built, and a bridge to the mainland was built. Okay so the tags are really just copies of data that should be elsewhere. The city has a database, and I have a spreadsheet I'm using as I map each of the 60-or-so Road Ends. But of course I want just '''one''' tag at least, that can reference a list elsewhere. If there's a way of doing that using an existing tag, I'd rather be doing that, of course, than adding an unnecessary tag. Okay so "row" is a copy of the text in the "RIGHT OF WAY" field in the city's table of Road Ends. And "tidelands" is the text from the "TIDELANDS" row.

I thought it'd be good to have this data available to others. Ideally without unnecessary duplication. The city does have a ArcGIS account, and some of the data about Road Ends is in there. I could put each Road End into Wikidata, but my understanding is that there shouldn't really be anything in the official Wikidata dataset that isn't also on Wikipedia, which by implies it meets the notoriety criteria to end up in there. And I doubt that a collection of a few tens of yards of mud track on an island is sufficiently notorious to meet that criteria. Although having said that, an epic legal battle around access to one of them - Fletcher Bay Landing - ended up in the Washington State surpreme court, so there's that! There are several others that the city had to fight hard to make available to the public when the Road Ends were first organized about twenty years ago. That's a long answer. It's probably best I talk to my local OSM group about this rather than bother a some bloke in Germany who's just trying to keep OSM from falling apart. And I can do that, and point them to this discussion! Thanks for all the work you do on OSM.

The fence is along the parcel boundary of the park for now. Bear in mind that the west boundary of the park is currently glued to the road. I'm assuming that's not a good idea (wasn't me, but easily done!).

Actually this is: add some of the fence to the west of the park, and at least one gate in the fence. There are other gaps.

Hi, sure, thanks, I've changed them all to natural=wood as you suggested.

So turns out this building is actually condo up top, shops on the bottom. With garages at the back, connected by the stairways. I just checked the address point data from the City's site address layer (I'll be getting an update soon from their GIS person). But I could just as easily have looked up. My understanding is that there's no "mixed use" tag, and that I should at least just mark the entire building as "retail". Ideally I'd split the building up into the retail, accomodation and garage bits, and put addresses on entrance=main nodes in the appropriate place. Right?

Hi, thanks. Just checking: the land is private, but the informal path is clearly well-established, from the look of it, and there are no "private property" or "no trespassing" signs on either end. So it's "informal", right? From what I understand from more reading about OSM, the emphasis should be on what I see, and what people obviously do, rather than concerns about land ownership. So in way, me having a layer of parcel data from the city's ArcGIS server is getting in the way. Whereas, on the other hand, the city's data telling me another trail is public and managed by the city itself means it's reasonable to put access=yes. Right?

Sorry I didn't use the right comment on my changeset.