You have added the postcode NG2 3AA to Nottingham Mail Centre. This appears wrong to me, because the mail centre is in the NG9 postcode area. I don't doubt mail for the postcode you added is processed here, but it is certainly not the postcode of the mail centre itself.

Are you aware that the American Adventure permanently closed more the 8 years ago and that almost all the buildings and other structures have since been removed? The Bing imagery (4 years old) shows an empty site and that is still how it is today.

Would it be okay if I revert the changes you made? The previous mapping did accurately show the site as it is today.

I find the use of 'playground' to describe individual play equipment confusing, because the word playground usually refers to the whole site. Anyway, I have changed the tag to playground:type=adventure to avoid conflicting with this usage.

I have never been inside the site, but I believe it includes 'structure' play equipment in a woodland setting.

I don't think the change you have made here is correct. You have changed playground=adventure_playground to playground:theme=adventure.

On the wiki, examples given for playground:theme include: ship, octopus, rocket and horse. These don't fit with an adventure playground, which is a specific type of playground, not just a superficial theme. Adventure playgrounds can themselves have a theme.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_playground

I notice you are manually importing a large number of names from OS Streetview. I'm concerned you do not seem to be paying sufficient attention to what has already been mapped. In particular, there are many cases where you are adding place=farm tags when the farms have already been mapped as an area using landuse=farmyard. This causes duplicate names to appear. You should not be duplicating features in this way, see osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element. Here's an example in this changeset: osm.org/node/3693295857

Additionally, you are adding bridge names using the place=locality tag. Do you have any evidence that these are really locality names? If not, they are better added as a name to the bridge itself. Determining what is a locality name requires good local knowledge. Here's an example in this changeset of a bridge name added using place=locality, duplicating the name already added to the bridge itself: osm.org/node/3693295867

My comments above apply not just to this changeset, but also to many others you have uploaded over the last few months. Please keep in mind that OSM is a collaborative project. You should not be ignoring the existing data. Additionally, the aim is not to make a replica of OS mapping. Names on OS maps are not infrequently out of date (and even occasionally just wrong) so the decision to add them should really be based on local knowledge or ground survey.

Have you asked other mappers in the areas you are targeting whether this indiscriminate copying of OS names is actually wanted?

This changeset looks problematic. You seem to have misunderstood that amenity=bar and bar=yes are not exactly equivalent.

If something is tagged as tourism=hotel and bar=yes, it indicates the feature is primarily a hotel, which happens to have a bar inside. For rendering purposes, it should be shown as a hotel. Your change has removed this important distinction.

If the mapper who added the feature in the first place considered the bar an important feature in its own right, they could have added it separately, but they chose not to.

A number of objects you have changed are also tagged with restaurant=yes, which is used in the same way.

I do think this change is worthwhile, however, I would have highly appreciated reasonable advance notice so that I could have updated visualisations I maintain which make use of the EH_ref tag ahead of the change - e.g. http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?l=listedbuildings

I don't think a documented tag with over 2000 uses should be changed to a new key without any discussion or warning. If I hadn't checked the latest changes, I could easily have missed it had occurred, and would likely have only found out once things depending on the old tag had stopped working.

The railway lines now differ from what is shown on the Bing imagery around Trent Junction. Please could you confirm the source for the changes you have made. If you have knowledge of recent changes that's great, but it's helpful to cite a source so other mappers can double check the changes.

My concern is that there is now no direct connection between Trent Junction and Sheetstores Junction. Surely that route is used by trains heading between Derby and the south?

I'm wondering why you have deleted the bridleway stubs listed below? Have you checked on the ground that they no longer exist?

osm.org/way/55314110/history
osm.org/way/55314099/history
osm.org/way/55314101/history

Throughout Bestwood Country Park there is a network of bridleways. They are typically separate from the paths used by pedestrians and cyclists. They often run parallel to other paths but are physically separate. Most of them do still need mapping, but the ways you deleted appeared to be part of that network, showing where they crossed other paths.

I see you are continuing to make junction simplification edits. These changes go against the consensus of the community

Please see my concerns here: osm.org/changeset/30449895

Additionally, I see you are now creating multiple ways when there is no physical separation in the road - we do not map individual road lanes in this way.

OSM does not just exist for your router, it is used for a wide variety of purposes including printed maps - your changes seem to ignore this fact.

I encourage you to discuss your changes before making further edits.

I have concerns about your recent edits in West Bridgford (Loughbough Road/Radcliffe Road junction):

1. You have left behind several broken turn restrictions. These all need fixing.

2. You have removed the intersecting nodes from overlapping highways. Highways should never overlap (without a joining node) unless they are on different levels.

Basically, you have re-modelled the junction in a non-standard way. Turn restrictions are the way routing on complex junctions is handled. Other mappers have spent time accurately adding turn restrictions and you appear to have ignored them.

I will give you time to fix these issues, but I do so myself in a day or two if necessary.

See:
osm.wiki/Relation:restriction

I agree that using addr:housename seems wrong here. I would have left it alone, but if I was tagging it myself I would use addr:place.

Thank you for changing it. I will verify what exists on the ground next time I pass by that way.

Why have you changed shop=chandlery to shop=outdoor? To me they describe substantially different shop types.

Your second point doesn't make sense to me. I am tagging building typology. A large office block is a different sort of building from a single office unit. It's similar to building=house and building=apartments.

Anyway, the issue here isn't the correctness of my tagging, it is a question of whether a mass undiscussed tag change was appropriate. I doubt all 919 changes were manually reviewed.

I'll wait a few more hours to see whether the user who made the changes (pschonmann) wishes to discuss it (and preferably revert). If not, I'll make a compliant to the Data Working Group.

I have used both building=office and building=offices for a number of years. I disagree this edit is just fixing typos.

I don't regard the two values as exactly equivalent. In the past I have used building=offices for large office buildings typically housing more than one company. I now think building=commercial is better for this. building=office, however, implies to me a smaller office building typically used by a single company.

There are of course different opinions about which building tags should be used and in general it is worthwhile trying to standardise things, but this should not be done using undiscussed mass tag edits, especially when the values being changed aren't exactly equivalent.

Regarding the wiki, it doesn't matter whether building=offices is documented - building=office isn't either! The documented building tags seem to change all the time, so like many mappers I choose to ignore them.

You have changed hundreds of buildings tagged with building=offices to building=office.

I regard this change as controversial and think it should be reverted. building=offices has been used for a number of years and any attempt to merge it with building=office should have been discussed first.

You are systematically changing all the leisure=gym to leisure=fitness_centre. I have noticed you doing this gradually over more than two weeks. It is courteous to include changeset comments when changing tags, so it is immediately clear to others what you are doing. Also, I think this change should have been discussed first. To me this is a mass edit, the fact you have done it in small parts, by stealth, doesn't change that.

Have reverted. See changeset comment.

There are no apostrophes included in the street signs at the junction with Oxclose Lane. I haven't yet checked the signs further up the road in the Nottingham City Council area.