Why do you think it's acceptable to delete tags that contain meaningful information?

Every other bus stop in the local area I have checked has a name displayed, so I considered it worthwhile recording that this one doesn't.

My personal preference would be to delete these descriptive names completely or move them to the description tag. I think the rule of not including route names in the name tag is worth following because they usually clash with street names or other routes. Parts of 'The Big Track' by the river could also be named 'Trent Valley Way', for example.

I have deleted the house you added, because all the houses on Smithfield Avenue have been mapped already, so it's just duplicating what is there.
Your contributions are most welcome, but please note that there is no need to add things that are already mapped. If you wish to change a name or add extra information, you should edit the feature that has already been created.

I'm puzzled by this edit. You have removed a short section of road on Belvoir Hill. The area is covered by trees on both the Bing and MapBox imagery, so what source did you use to decide the ground surveyed data was incorrect?

Also, I've just reverted two of your other changesets: 30011613 and 30014074
I'm familiar with both locations and know the roads/paths do not join up. There have now been five incorrect changes by MapBox employees in my local area in the last week.

Please be more careful and do not change things unless you are certain they are incorrect.

I have reverted this changeset. This area has already been surveyed in detail on the ground and if two ways don't join it is usually deliberate. Nidderdale and Fylingdale Way are separated by a brick wall. These sort of remote changes show contempt for people who have spent time surveying their local area on the ground. PLEASE BE MORE CAREFUL.

From memory I believe the CycleStreets photo does show the correct location. It was blocked in a similar way when I surveyed it, hence why I tagged it as private.
The track does physically still exist, even if the gate is blocked by a lump of rock and corrugated iron, so I see no reason to disconnect it from Castle Lane completely.

I've reverted this change because it is incorrect. There is a barrier (wall or fence) at the end of Ossington Street preventing direct access to the path.
The area in which you made this edit has been surveyed in some detail on the ground and if the ways did join up its very likely it would have already been mapped that way.
Please be more careful.

Hi,

A couple of thoughts about this change:

1. Is 'Derbyshire Land Registry' a suitable source for making changes to OSM? Note that you must only use sources that are compatible with OSM's ODBL licence. This means most copyrighted sources cannot be used.

2. We map what physically exists on the ground, which might not correspond with what official sources claim. When I mapped that area, Castle Drive did physically join up with Castle Lane. The only legitimate reason for separating them would be if you have verified on the ground that a fence or other barrier has appeared that completely blocks access. Castle Drive is already tagged as being private.

Regards,
Will

Hi,

I was planning to survey the new estate you have added at the weekend, but no point now you have done it. Could you just reassure me that you have checked the roads and names on the ground? You didn't cite another source and some of the roads don't yet appear on Bing, so I guess you must have.

Will

I'm guessing this was unintentional: osm.org/way/333428689. It duplicates the Wickes on the other side of the road.

Will

Hi,

You have just deleted several tags from osm.org/way/224843465. Tags like 'not:nccod:amenity' are intended to help local mappers interpret open data sources provided by the city council. You appear to be making changes across the world, so I doubt you understood the meaning of the tags when you deleted them - so please explain why you did so?

It is very disrespectful to other contributors to go round randomly deleting tags just because you personally don't think they are useful.

Hello,

You have added a no-right-turn restriction from High Street to New Street (Long Eaton). Are you sure that is correct? New Street is tagged as oneway from High Street, so your change blocks all access.

Will

Yes, a typo. Now corrected.

Usage of 'train station' is widespread. If you consider it incorrect, then fine, you are entitled to that view, but it's inappropriate for you to impose your opinion on the data in OSM. We should be mapping what is there. The sign has deliberately been written that way: it isn't a spelling mistake.

What is your source for this change please?

I have a survey photo taken 4 days ago that clearly shows the name written on the stop is 'Train Station / Wilsthorpe Road'.

In this changeset you have deleted valid information including the operator of the petrol station (Texaco) and the postal address of the associated convenience store. This information needs to be put back. It is not acceptable to just delete valid information.

Also, what is the source for the changes you are making? You are rapidly changing Co-operative stores over a wide area and I see no evidence you are checking them on the ground. You must make sure the information you are adding does not infringe anyone's copyright and that it is compatible with OSM's ODbL licence.

Hi,

I see you have moved The Co-operative Food from a node to an area. In doing so you have deleted the postal address, which was added by me previously. Please be careful not to delete valid information added by other mappers.

The details of the deleted node are here:
osm.org/node/1249833113/history

Regards,
Will (will_p)

I forgot to update the changeset comment, should have been:
Fixed turn restrictions on Queens Road East / University Boulevard junction

Why have you changed the not:name tag here? The 'not:name' should never be the same as the 'name' tag. The 'not:name' tag is intended to record an incorrect name. It is usually used when the OS Locator name has been checked and found to be incorrect. It shows that a discrepancy between OSM and OSL has been checked on the ground, so others don't waste time checking it again. More details here: osm.wiki/Key:not:name.

I have reverted this edit. Please do not delete valid information just because you disagree with or don't understand a tag.