Hi,

I see you have changed the section of Bath Street between Pelham Street and Station Road to oneway. I am reasonably sure that section is open to traffic in both directions. Are you certain that's not the case?

I cycled along there this morning. I wasn't aware of this change then, else I would have had a more thorough look.

Thanks,
Will

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Just to note that I removed your earlier edit because you changed the oneway=no tag on Upper Parliament Street to oneway=reversible. That was incorrect because the 'reversible' value actually means the street is oneway, but the direction can change.

The oneway=no tag indicates the street is two way. It is an optional tag, so there was no harm done by you removing it, but the change wasn't necessary.

You might like to read the relevant wiki page:
osm.wiki/Key:oneway

Regards,
Will

I didn't know Player Street had reopened to motor vehicles. For avoidance of doubt, please could you confirm that you have visited this location or let me know which source you used to know the access has recently changed. Thanks.

You have added access=no to the lower part of Popham Street. Last time I visited this was the main route into a public car park. What source have you used for this change please?

Hi,
You have changed the access restrictions along parts of Bath Street and Chapel Street in Ilkeston to allow all motor vehicle access between 10:00-16:00. Previously only buses were allowed between these times. What is the source of these changes please?

Hi,
You have changed several streets from oneway=yes to oneway=no in the centre of Long Eaton. Unless things on the ground have changed very recently this appears incorrect. What is the source of your changes please?

Another relation here: osm.org/relation/6148106

Thanks for explaining what you are doing.

One comment - wouldn't it be better to use the lock_name tag for the name of the lock? The lock_ref tag is intended for the reference number. Most locks near where I live display both a reference number and a name.

Cheers,
Will

Hi,

I notice you have removed the name 'Sawley Flood Lock' from osm.org/way/48294880/history
Why have you done that please?

Also, what source are you using for these edits? You are making changes all over the country, so I'm guessing you haven't surveyed all these locations.

Thanks,
Will

The main south-west section of the churchyard, around the church itself, actually still has quite a lot of gravestones, it's just that many of them have been moved and placed against the perimeter walls and a few against the church itself. Looking at my photos I estimate there are still around 100 gravestones there.

I'm not convinced that using historic=grave_yard is a good idea. For one thing, amenity=grave_yard is a well established tag with 9168 uses in the UK, while historic=grave_yard has been used only once. The vast majority of old churchyards are already tagged using amenity=grave_yard and it is not uncommon for them to be similar to the situation here, where the gravestones have been 'tidied' to the sides. Second, in my view, amenity=grave_yard is intended to represent the consecrated ground around churches. This is usually green space with paths. I don't think it matters if the graves are historic or not.

Hi,
It's not clear to me why you have removed the grave yard from immediately around St Mary's Church (Weston on Trent)? That area is definitely part of the grave yard (my survey photos show lots of grave stones).
Thanks, Will

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree it doesn't make sense. I should have removed foot=permissive when I added access=private. Now corrected.

Thanks for correcting it. All looks fine now.

Hi,

Great to see you are adding some buildings. Please keep in mind though that the Bing imagery around Hucknall is more than five years date of date. I mention this because I notice you have changed the Co-op store on Watnall Road back into the shape of the pub which stood there before the Co-op was built. The Ersi layer is more recent and shows the new building shape.

Cheers,
Will (will_p)

I've now corrected the name to the previously mapped 'Blenheim Hall' as displayed on the signs outside.

Hi,
Is this building really called "Blenheim Hall's"? The apostrophe in particular appears wrong. It was called "Blenheim Hall" when I surveyed it four years ago. The operator's web page currently refers to it as just "Blenheim" (https://www.ntu.ac.uk/university-life-and-nottingham/accommodation/find-ntu-accommodation/blenheim)

Hi Mike,

I object to the change you have made here. You have changed bridge=chain to bridge=yes. How has the data been improved by this? You appear to only be stripping out information. I don't believe there is any consensus that bridges must only be tagged with bridge=yes. bridge=chain identifies a distinctive type of bridge.

I notice you have been making similar changes in dozens of other changesets. If you are going to systematically alter bridge tagging in this way, you really should discuss it with the community first. The fact that you have chosen to make these changes over several months, often with one object per changeset, does not change that, because it is clearly systematic.

Regards,
Will

Thanks for the quick response. These paths are confusing and I'm sure many people have followed them wrongly assuming that they join up.

I have updated your edit: I have left the section of path I remember walking along in place, but have removed the section around Moor Cottages/Old Workhouse Farm which I suspect doesn't exist.

Please keep in mind that OS maps are copyright and are not a suitable source for contributing to OSM. You can see the rights of way on this site: http://www.rowmaps.com/showmap.php?place=Trowell%20Moor&map=OSM&lat=52.9571&lon=1.25699&lonew=W

Hi,
Could you just confirm that you have walked along the entire length of this path? It is several years since I have attempted to walk this route, but I remember that starting at the eastern end, the path was completely blocked by a high hedge and barbed wire fences when it reached the boundary of the house next to Old Workhouse Farm. I believe the official right of way is a dead end that stops at the property boundary. Is it now possible to get through?

Thanks,
Will

I reverted your change because it stripped out information. Just because a tag isn't documented on the wiki, does not mean its use is not allowed, and it certainly does not permit you to randomly swoop down and remove it. OSM mappers thankfully aren't limited to a list of 'approved' tags.

Adding more specific values to the bridge=* and tunnel=* tags seems very much in line with acceptable OSM tagging practice to me. Indeed the wiki already documents several more specific values for these tags. Why shouldn't mappers indicate the specific type of tunnel if they wish?

I also notice you have been replacing specific bridge=* tags with bridge=yes. I'm really not sure why you think it is acceptable to strip out information in this way. None of the removed bridge values were added by me, but again they looked entirely acceptable.