I told you to reverse this incorrect edit. You have logged on since I posted that comment so you know about this comment. Since you have ignored my instruction I am now going to reverse this edit myself.

You know my conclusion.

Stop deleting valid tags.

You aren't just adding those extra tags. You are removing extant valid tags. There is a difference.

Oh and as for Streetcomplete? Number 3 contributor in the UK and number 20 contributor worldwide. So yes I am quite aware of that piece of software thank you.

You're removing valid tags with a lot of your edits. Please stop doing this now.

maxspeed=70 mph and maxspeed=60 mph and maxspeed=30 mph should not be removed from any road within the UK unless they are incorrect speed limits. maxspeed:type is NOT a substitute for these tags. It is an addition to them.

Well that's funny.

The Coventry Building Society has been there every day since that incorrect change as I've walked past it. It was there when I walked past it this morning.

Reverse that edit as it's utterly incorrect.

Can you now. So why did you delete the ways entirely then? Why did you not just remove the tags as your dishonest edit summary suggested you had?

As for my tagging after I undeleted them the first time? Quite correct actually. When I first created those bays the current tagging scheme didn't exist. So they were tagged reasonably appropriately for the time. Now? The new parking schema exists.

So let's have a look at this schema's notes on the wiki.

"Parking only in parking bays adjacent to the carriageway, which could not easily be converted into a travel lane."

That's versus:

"Parking on the street (which could be easily converted to a travel lane)."

Are the parking bays in question adjacent to the carriageway? Yes. See a parking aisle is a carriageway in exactly the same way any other road or street is. Now it is arguable that some of the bays in this particular car park are just paint on the tarmac. However a good portion of them certainly aren't. A good portion of them are structurally built as street side bays.

As for tagging the whole car park? Where exactly are its limits? That's often an awkward question when dealing with them. Individual bays are very clearly delimited. Hence preferring tagging them.

Oh and as for, "Disabled parking is required and I can make out at least one so I know you didn't survey any of the specialized capacities"? Wrong. Now for the bays over the crest of the hill it is a bit tricky to see them from the gate. However for the ones nearer to the entrance I very much did survey them. See I did it when I walked past the club. So you deleted things that I absolutely did survey. Also there is one bay which appears to have disabled spaces. The others clearly don't have such bays even from aerial imagery.

So the most you should have done is removed the disabled capacity tag from the bay next to the buildings. One tag on one way only. Yet you deleted them all. All of the tags. All of the ways.

"disabled parking hasn't been surveyed so I removed related tags."

What a dishonest edit summary. This is not "removed related tags". This is wholesale deletion of multiple ways.

Did you survey it then? Are you a member of the club? If you did why did you not correct the capacity tagging rather than deleting all of the bays?

I guess I'll just have to undelete things again and report you for vandalism.

You know you really should watch out when doing deleting like this.

You replaced well-tagged, albeit improvable, parking bays with a single, virtually untagged car park. That was not appreciated and I have reversed your improper deletions and removed your addition.

Further these are the bylaws covering the area:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/39585/imber_range.pdf

They are the Imber Byelaws 1963. There is a big sign in Imber with those bylaws on it. To wit byelaw no. 3 starts, "The Danger Area shall be permanently closed to the public. Subject to the provisions of Byelaw No. 8, no person shall:-

"(a) enter into or upon or pass over or through the Danger Area, or
"(b) be or remain in the Danger Area, or
"(c) cause or permit to suffer any vehicle, animal, aircraft or thing to enter into or upon or to pass through or to be or remain in or upon the Danger Area, or
"(d) cause or permit any aircraft to fly over the Danger Area at a height less than 30,000 feet above mean sea level."

That is absolutely NOT permissive access to the area as defined by OSM tagging schemes. Permissive access means generally open to the public with a permission which may be revoked. This is the opposite. It is generally closed to the public with permission for access to the village occasionally granted.

Regardless of what the status of the access tag there is one thing that very definitively is completely wrong.

The road through Imber has been tagged with a speed limit of 30 mph in this changeset. That is utterly wrong. I know because I was there yesterday and tagged the 15 mph speed limit based on the signs at the edge of the village.

Definitely not intentional! Corrected as of about 60 seconds ago.

They've definitely started relabelling infrastructure. I've seen two substations with new stickers over the last few days.

Probably worth getting the ELI entry for iD changed as well so that WPD stuff gets flagged for update in that as well as outdated tagging. That'll help with the transition.

Take it up with the maintainers of iD. Their validator marks it as invalid tagging, and it seems reasonable to do so. I have my own fundamental disagreements with maintainers of validators etc over tagging concerning tagging of lanes and the way Osmose handles things so I can understand where such feelings come from.

To quote from the information in this changeset:

resolved:close_nodes:vertices 1
resolved:outdated_tags:deprecated_tags 14
resolved:outdated_tags:incomplete_tags 5
resolved:outdated_tags:noncanonical_brand 495
warnings:mismatched_geometry:point_as_vertex 1

Those are minor errors and I resolved them. Hence fixing minor errors. Hence the changeset comment.

Edge of the road where there is mostly kerb but at the entrance to that tyre business there is no kerb in that section. Awkward to tag because the edge of the road should be demarked but there isn't a physical kerb there.

Safe to say that Osmose and I have a fundamental disagreement about lanes:forward as a tag.

They flag it is as invalid tagging if used on a one-way street. It can perhaps legitimately be argued to be redundant tagging. That is not the same as invalid tagging.

Osmose can be useful, but it needs to be treated more carefully as a QA tool than some others. The maintainers have some rather strange ideas about validity of tagging.

Some of your work was indeed improvements. Making geometries better. Improving tagging. However you removed a great deal of validly tagged material and destroyed detail. For example consider Rue de la Gare meeting Rue du Docteur Brousse. It's very clearly marked there that there's a turning restriction. Turning out of Rue de la Gare you can only go right, presumably because of the proximity to the roundabout allowing easy switching of direction on Rue du Docteur Brousse. Your merging of the ways there meant that turn restriction's presence was lost. That merging of ways also meant that the transit of Rue de la Gare across some bricks in between two asphalt-surfaced sections was also lost. You also merged a lot of sections of brick surface where Rue du Docteur Brousse goes across pedestrian crossings. Those are not just painted onto the road, but they are actually brick. Hence the surface of that section of road being marked as paving stones where appropriate.

Furthermore your mass deletion of traffic signs is also vandalism.

There is no excuse for mass deletion of valid tagging. STOP DOING IT.

Pour les français ici, il y a des vandalisme. Beaucoup de suppression en masse. C'est pas acceptable. Arrêtez maintenant!

So then we appear to have a mixture of good work and vandalism in this changeset and some of your other recent changesets.

In most cases the changes to the geometry of the streets are improvements. However what on earth you have done at the south-western approaches to the Pont de l'Entente Cordiale is beyond me. The most recent aerial imagery does not support the changes you have made. The IGN map does not support the changes you have made. Heck the Google Streetview imagery from June 2021 does not support the changes you have made. So why have you made those changes? If the IGN map supported them that would be one thing, but it doesn't.

Then we have the actual vandalism: mass removal of lanes:forward and lanes:backward tagging. That is valid tagging, so why did you remove it en masse? Consider Rue des Bergeronnettes for example. Not only did you thoroughly mess up your alteration of the geometry of the street by leaving multiple traffic sign tags formerly attached to the deleted ways in place as orphaned nodes, but you also removed lanes:foward=1 and lanes:backward=1 from the tagging for no legitimate reason.

There is one lane in the direction of the way. There is one lane against the direction of the way. Hence lanes:forward=1 and lanes:backward=1 is valid tagging. The road is obviously wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other.

Incidentally your vandalism of those tags will be vain. I will simply add them back over the next few days. Oh and yes that does include adding back lanes:foward to one-way streets as well.

So what is it this time then?

Can't be "tagging for the renderer" since neither tag is shown in common renderers. Can't be using the more widely used tag since the one you changed things to is vastly less widely used, and has all of the classic hallmarks of an artificially-enhanced tag given the essentially vertical jump in usage in mid-2018.

Your removal of unsigned_ref is NOT wanted. It is the more widely-used tag by several times. It is the tag supported by a major editor (Vespucci) when no editor supports the tag you are changing things to.

The changeset is at least of reasonable size this time, but that's the only remotely positive thing that can be said about it.

If you are going to insist on using that tag then add it as an additional tag. Do NOT remove the correct tagging already in place.

Did I really verify all of them? Yes. As much as is possible with armchair mapping. The problem with that particular changeset is the Megabus route. That is the thing that makes it have a massive geographical extent. Otherwise you will notice that everything is firmly in the Sheffield area. That Megabus route happens to through the Sheffield area.

So regarding borough v town: how do we tag things? For administrative entities? Yes. Hounslow is a borough there. For geogragraphical locations? Yes. Hounslow is a town there.

So Hounslow is BOTH in the grand scheme of things.

This particular node? Certainly not the borough. Therefore the tagging of it as such is wrong.

As for Hounslow West's tagging? Well it's a certainly a Hounslow Borough Council ward. Don't know if it's actually used as a neighbourhood name locally, but I suspect not. Were it a geographical name then it would be more likely to be West Hounslow instead. However that's a matter for those with more local knowledge than me.