Has this import been discussed anywhere? What is the source for this data? These are very unusual things to map in OSM, would it not just be better for data consumers to use an overlay? There are now long lines crossing many European countries that could cause confusion when mapping.

Our job is to create accurate data, not make things look pretty. Moving a village node to the middle of a field because you don't want it near the train station node is not right. It's the job of renderers and data consumers to deal with cases like these when two labels are close to each other.

I have moved the label back to the village centre, you shouldn't move things around just because you don't like how they render on Carto

looks like the traffic signals approaching the crossing are now facing the wrong direction?

Hi there, what is the source you have used for adding housenumbers and postcodes here? I can't see what layer you were using in that mapbox link.

Si, just trying out the new tags. If we decide to go with different tagging, I will come back and change them.

Lots of buildings that were imported from OS here are still pretty poor and need significant improvement/splitting, e.g. way/655276944. source=OS was a good indicator that they needed a fixup. It would be worthwhile going through the buildings you removed source=OS from and re-adding some kind of fixme=tag that they need correcting.

Just a note - building=terrace is for an entire terrace building, you should use building=house + house=terraced for individual terraced houses :)

Hi Steve, thanks for updating these shops! I would recommend duplicating address tags from these buildings onto the shops within - it gives more information to people that are only looking at the shop node and not the surrounding building :)

You're very welcome, I was solving a note in the town centre and was horrified by all the glued landuse making it quite hard to actually edit the roads. I did look back through the history of these ways to see who was responsible and did see the giant polygon you split previously that covered the whole town! I hope my untangling will make your edits easier in the future :)

Only a small part of Draycott Avenue has 'duplicate' sidewalk tags due to the fact that I only added sidewalks a short part of the way up the road. It's left like that so the next person can come along and continue the sidewalks more, and then update the whole road to sidewalk:both=separate. There's no point splitting the road and adding sidewalk:right/left tags for those tiny sections.

Not sure what isn't clear about what I'm doing, I'm adding in/updating little things here and there that were flagged as notes by other contributors. You can see in the details of ways and nodes changed what has been updated, I don't really need to write every little change I've made out. Not sure either why you think separate sidewalks are controversial, they're quite common in London. It's also quite a limited changeset just updating some things around Kenton from a few notes by the same contributor. No need to make lots of little changesets for different things.

As for the car park at Radbourne Court, as I've added it from aerial imagery I do not know the access that should be tagged (be that customers or private). If you know that it is private, you are welcome to add that tag yourself. I can't add tags that I don't know what they should be.

I'm not sure what all this nitpicking achieves, as far as I'm concerned this is just a normal changeset resolving some notes and something I do very regularly. Unless there's anything I've actually done wrong, there's nothing for me to do here.

I've added those housenumbers, thank you.

Hi, thanks for adding this address. This semidetached house hadn't been split into two buildings yet, so you applied the housenumber to both houses. Could you confirm whether number 87 is the Eastern or Western house? If you know any of the nearby housenumbers, they would also be valuable to add. Thanks :)

🆗

Naja just a temporary tag I used in josm to keep track of what buildings I needed to correct - I have removed it. Grüße, LGS :)

In this specific context I will endorse #greenireland

You have created relation/21139215 which is a blank type=multipolygon relation, and the ruined building really doesn't need to be a multipolygon.

It isn't necessary to have the wetland and pond as multipolygons.

As per previous changeset, none of this tagging makes any sense.

This doesn't make any sense - you've got amenity=fuel tagged on a type=building relation. The best way to resolve the overlapping buildings would be to move them slightly so they aren't overlapping. One building=retail and one building=roof.