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worth getting the ELI entry for iD changed as well so that WPD stuff gets flagged for update in that as well as outdated tagging.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.

Because it's bad tagging. To quote from the Gloucestershire definitive map website, "The routes shown have been transposed from the original Definitive Map, which is at a published scale of 1;10,560; therefore please make due allowance for any extra implied accuracy at the supplied scale."

That highway=no tag way was slavishly copied from the definitive map site with no consideration for the actual situation on the ground. The highway tag is for situations where there actually are ways through to follow.

In general the state of the geometry of the roads around that area is appalling. Far too angular and not really bearing proper relation to what is actually present on the ground.

And AGAIN your arrogant crusade continues. Stop this NOW!

Engage with the proper process to get this sorted out. Stop vandalising the map or I will report your to the DWG and try to get you banned for doing this.

Rue Roland Dorgelès? Really? You think that's good editing?

You have just taken the BANO data and dumped it onto the map without any proper thought. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe the BANO location data might be wrong? There is clearly a row of buildings on Rue Roland Dorgelès numbered between 28 and 40. There are also clearly two buildings from Rue Carnot numbered 238 and 240. Yet you just create address nodes willy-nilly in the locations where BANO purports to indicate that the buildings are. No consideration as to the actual location of the addresses.

Now there can be discussion about the practice of tagging random points near buildings rather than the actual buildings (or entrances of buildings if there are multiple addresses within one building). You haven't done that. You've just splurged a whole lot of junk onto the system. You've also removed valid addr:street tagging from a number of locations.

BANO says. BANO correct. Me map. That's the level of thought and care you've displayed with this.

So please stop doing this as you have been. If you're going to create these associated street relations then at least do so with some proper care. At least check that the BANO location information is actually correct. Oh and don't remove valid addr:street tagging when creating these relations.

My, my, my I see you're STILL at this.

Well they've altered the presets in iD to deal with the fairways etc issue and bring it into line with the wiki. However that did NOT cover bunkers and on this you're out of line with the wiki as well.

"A type of hazard, also known as a sand trap, which is a depression in the ground filled with sand. Recommended to also tag with surface=sand or natural=sand. Do not use natural=beach--it's not a beach!"

Now it does say surface=sand or natural=sand, and iD is using both, but you're going about this the wrong way. Open a ticket on the iD presets tracker. Get it sorted out there.

Stop edit-warring. Stop doing edits like this covering enormous areas. Stop being so arrogant and high-handed.

What do I think is incorrect?

What I think is incorrect is claiming that using the tag lanes:forward in combination with oneway=yes and lanes is wrong.

To me there is absolutely nothing wrong with NOT using the tags in combination. So there is nothing wrong per se with simply using oneway=yes and lanes. It implicitly means lanes:forward. I'm merely making that explicit.

For me it's the same sort of thing as adding oneway=no explicitly to ways. People tend not to do it, but again it's just making explicit what was previously implicit tagging.

That's why I strongly dislike validators flagging it. It is NOT invalid tagging. It is merely being more explicit in tagging than usual. It's very different to (for example) tagging lanes=4 lanes:forward=2 lanes:backward=1. That's clearly wrong as there are four running lanes tagged in total with two in one direction and one in the other for a total of three.

There is nothing wrong with using that key on a one-way road. It is no more likely to create "incoherences" on a one-way road than a two-way road.

I warned you about doing this again. You did it again.

Data Working Group it is.

You really do seem to be causing serious issues with this don't you.

They are small areas of grass which are mown. This is correct tagging for golf greens and golf fairways and golf tees. The wiki is not definitive as has been repeatedly said in other places.

Now admittedly I'm only going to revert your changes round the area where I actually live, but revert them I will.

If you remove the correct tagging again I will complain to the DWG.

Thanks for dealing with the bus routes through the toll booths. I thought I'd linked them all back up again.

However you removed a great deal of valid tagging of lanes:forward. Simply put Osmose's "validator" is wrong on this, as is JOSM's. Implicit tagging is not a problem, but neither should explicit tagging be either. By flagging correct explicit tagging as an "error" JOSM does the system no favours.

Please don't tag bridleways like this. Designation refers to legal access rights, and tagging a bridleway as bicycle=no and horse=no means cycling and riding a horse along it is legally prohibited. That makes a nonsense of the bridleway tagging. It also triggers ID's QA cleanup code.

There are other ways to tag physical access problems for particular modes of transport.