Hi, there were previously two objects tagged with place=town for West Bridgford:
osm.org/node/27008714
osm.org/relation/2661621

You have now added a third. Was that really necessary? There should obviously only be one.

Regards,
Will

Forgot to update changeset comment - should be added path in Mapperley Wood and near by minor power lines.

As well as removing SEO spam you have also deleted most of the address tags. Any reason why?

Thanks for your reply. I have re-added the unofficial but waymarked route and tagged it as permissive. It appears to be the route that the farmer wants people to take. When I surveyed it, I vaguely recall there was a gap in the hedge at the SW end, but no other indication that the official route existed.

Hi,

Has the route of this footpath changed recently? I last walked it last year. At that time there was a well defined path following the route you have deleted. The rights of way markers also clearly pointed along that route. I'm aware that the official designated route follows the new path you have added, so it was correct to add that, assuming it's not blocked. It is, however, incorrect to delete the waymarked route, unless there have been recent changes.

Thanks,
Will

I have removed the wood over Coppice Pond from the relation and have added Lakeside Business Centre instead. I don't know why that wood was added to the relation and suspect it may have been accidental. I realise the private area is bigger than the business centre, but don't want to directly copy from the DCC website map.

I've also extended the country park relation to cover part of Waterloo Cutting (osm.org/way/582386136). There were welcome signs half way along when I walked along there earlier this year.

Hi Dave,

Looking at this changeset, I realise I must have deleted the defibrillator outside the White Swan while surveying here on Saturday. I've no idea how that happened. Thanks for spotting my error and fixing it.

Regards,
Will

It is often difficult to determine exactly what a listed building designation covers based on the node and short description in the open data. In this case, the name in the listing data is:
CHURCH OF ST ANDREWW AND ATTACHED FORMER SUNDAY SCHOOL [sic]

I assumed the 'former Sunday School' bit referred to the church hall. Looking now at photos, the church hall, or at least the part facing Chaucer Street, is undeniably quite modern. Although I wonder whether the rear part, which is out of view, is the original Sunday School.

Listed status can cover the whole building, even ugly recent additions, so I think it is possible what I have added is correct. Although it definitely needs more research. If you feel strongly it is wrong, I have no objection to you changing it.

The deletions you are making look a bit heavy handed. As well as the shop and name tags you are also deleting some addresses. For example: osm.org/node/2942782326/history
Empty shop units still have addresses, so they should be left in place. In addition, I certainly find updating shops quicker and easier if the empty units and addresses are still there.

Has this edit been discussed anywhere? It possibly falls under the code of conduct for automated edits: osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Hi,
Was the change from Costa to LCosta intentional?

Will

I'm not really responsible for this, because I didn't add the oil well or the building. All I did in this changeset was tag the village hall and retagged the oil well from man_made=petroleum_well to historic:man_made=petroleum_well. I thought the oil well required some more checking before removing it completely, although in retrospect probably better to just delete it. It is one of a large number of oil wells that were imported in 2009. I've already deleted 2 or 3 near where I live which definitely don't exist anywhere near the locations given.

Hi,

I notice you have again added foot=no to the following part of Woodhouse Way: osm.org/way/169139833

Please could you explain your reasons for adding this tag. To me it appears wrong because there is a pavement running along one side, which is commonly used by pedestrians.

The link below gives an example of why your tagging is problematic, it shows foot routing from Strelley village to Houghton Drive, the suggested route is almost twice as far as necessary due to foot access on Woodhouse Way being disallowed: osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=52.9715%2C-1.2381%3B52.9754%2C-1.2344#map=16/52.9775/-1.2372

Regards,
Will

Hi,
I notice you have added foot=no to Woodhouse Way. You should only add foot=no if foot access is actually prohibited, which is not the case here. If you wish to indicate whether or not there is a pavement, you should use the sidewalk tag.

The following way does have a pavement along the east side, except for a short part at the north end - osm.org/way/169139833

Regards,
Will

I've deleted the park, lake and other doodles you added here because they don't exist. Don't add imaginary features!

Hi,

The change you have made here doesn't make sense. You have removed motor_vehicle=no but kept motor_vehicle:conditional=yes@18:00-08:00. The default access for motor vehicles on unclassified roads is 'yes' so the conditional rule is now redundant.

What is your source for this change? I note you have given the source as 'Mapbox Satellite; Mapillary Images; Mapillary Signs', but I haven't been able to find any images of access signs at this location from these sources.

Regards,
Will

I think childcare is a tag that is worth supporting. I dislike the ambiguity of kindergarten, meaning different things in different countries.

I recognise that with OSM sometimes one has to accept the wrong tag name has been chosen, but not worry and get on with it. In this case though childcare does have some momentum behind it. Currently childcare has 766 uses versus kindergarten 2740 according to UK Taginfo).

How do you know Thorntree Lane is bidirectional? You clearly haven't visited the location. I can see from the aerial imagery that the road is very narrow, so it is likely to be oneway. Additionally the mapper who originally added the oneway did so after surveying the area on the ground.

I recognise you were trying to fix a problem with routing (as previously tagged, if someone drove along Thorntree Lane there was no way out again). However, you really shouldn't fix problems by just guessing. In this case, I suspect the real solution requires additional access tags rather than just removing the oneway. There are local mappers in the area, so why not instead open a note (osm.org/note/new#map=18/52.92186/-1.47366) and ask them to check it out?

Your edits are particularly concerning because you are clearly working as part of a team, who are making similar edits over a very wide area. Have these edits been discussed with the community anywhere? Has a page been created on the wiki (or another location) where you explain the aims of your edits, plus details of who is organising them and so on?

Hi,
I was able to take another look at this location yesterday. I assume you have made a mistake here, because the middle section of Bath Street is definitely two way traffic. I have updated the map to reflect this.
Regards,
Will

I have now verified these changes were incorrect and have reverted. Please don't change access tags without a reliable source.

Thanks for responding.

Please don't change access restrictions by guessing. The situation was worse after your change because people could be illegally routed the wrong way down one way streets, whereas before there were some short sections of street that were only routable via a pedestrian street (which is really the case).

Access inconsistencies of this type can't be solved remotely. Perhaps open a Note and ask local mappers to take a look if it is a concern.

Regards,
Will