Hi, this edit has added names to objects that are not named. The names of long distance routes belong on the relation and not on the individual way. The individual ways can very well have their own name or quite probably no name.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has added names to objects that are not named. The names of long distance routes belong on the relation and not on the individual way. The individual ways can very well have their own name or quite probably no name.

Cheers Phil

Ah, got it. Had missed deleting the tags although this has been One Stop since at least 2011.
osm.org/node/621354623/history

Cheers Phil

It is a One Stop as mapped, why are you even asking that question?

Cheers Phil

Hi, the route of osm.org/way/913548853 looks a bit odd.

Much of it is in water and is unlikely to be the route you actually walked. Was there a bridge when you surveyed it?

Cheers Phil

> I used the streetlevel imagery to
> verify the bridleways from the West
> side but as above this might have
> changed since 2009.
The only streetlevel imagery sources we are allowed to use are https://www.mapillary.com and Bing Streetside, although bing streetside has no coverage in Shropshire. We absolutely must not use the other one.

> Does using the overlays on
> council website
We cannot use the data on the council website, it is overlaid on an OS map which taints it from a copyright perspective.

We can however use the data from https://www.rowmaps.com/ which are just the overlays that we can pull into OSM editors such as josm.

I use the council provided file from https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/SH/ as the processed versions loose information such as priorities, although I use this beyond OSM. We can use this to get path number (put them in prow_ref) and the designation. Again do not copy the geometry as it is often not the walked line which we map in OSM.

HTH Phil

Hi
We really should not be using the definitive map, it is based on OS maps which are copyright, and we cannot copy from them. Rights of way need to be added by survey. We aim to map the on the ground line rather than the legal line.

What do you mean by streetlevel imagery?

Cheers Phil

Hi, this is a very strange edit. Just wondering why you have replaced the valid tag of amenity=arts_centre with a rather pointless amenity=yes?

Also please use meaningful changeset comments which describe what you were trying to achieve.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit seems to have gone rather wrong. Please can you explain what 'fix tag on amenity' means.

You seem to have changed a perfectly correct building=yes to amenity=yes, which is rather meaningless.

Cheers Phil

Hi, you seem to have lost the healthcare=doctor and replaced it with healthcare=yes. Please be careful not to loose important information.

Cheers Phil

The purpose of QA tools is to improve the map, not to simply make QA warnings go away.

Here you have simply deleted the tag amenity=yes, despite the name giving very obvious information as to what it is, and how it should be tagged.

If you do not understand what you are mapping the warning is best left alone as it will help another mapper find and fix the problem.

Cheers Phil

Hi
This edit has gone very wrong in a few places.
osm.org/way/234913886 and osm.org/way/234913872 are both tagged as disused so adding public_transport tags to them really doesn't make sense. The former is a disused goods platform, which makes public_transport tags doubly wrong.

You have also lost important surveyed tags on osm.org/way/69262248, amenity=social_club is a valid documented tag, see osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dsocial_club

It is important when making this type of mechanical edit that you review the suggested changes to ensure they a sensible and are not loosing surveyed information.

Cheers Phil

Hi
maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_restricted is not very helpful. There is not really a maxspeed:type of GB:nsl_restricted. In built up areas the speed limit may be 30 mph, it may be 20 mph and the needs to be put into the maxspeed tag.

Cheers Phil

Fiction reverted

Fiction reverted

Fiction reverted

Fiction reverted

Reverted and tagged as private

Hi, welcome to OSM.

Just because there is no access to a path it does not mean it should simply be deleted. It exists on the ground, you say so in your comment, so it has a place in OSM.

If there is no public access then it should be tagged a access=private.

Leaving it on the map is helpful to those walking to school who do not want to be directed round to the main entrance.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has gone very very wrong.

There was nothing wrong with the boundary type of this relation yet you have changed it to boundary=boundary then to boundary=administrative in changeset 98997377.

This the ceremonial boundary of Shropshire, it has no administrative function.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_counties_of_England

This edit is damaging to OSM data, I am therefore reverting your changes to this boundary.

If you need help understanding what the various versions of Shropshire are then please ask. I live here.

Cheers Phil