It's not necessary to create a multipolygon for a tiny square of grass like this.

⦿ | ⦿
___|___
■■■■💨

Presumably it's because this relation in Ireland was modified at the same time relation/12671221 as everything in Spain/France

i did
O | O
|
■■■■

Hi Julius, microsoft ai buildings are not suited very well for buildings in the UK - the majority of these are terraces and should be split into rows of terraced houses. If you enable OSMUK cadastral parcels it will highlight the property boundaries and show where the houses should be split. Thanks.

Hi, it's not necessary to create multipolygons that can otherwise be represented with closed ways as is the case here, it's a lot harder to work with multipolygons for a lot of users. I notice you've also merged 4 separate meadows into one larger polygon, this seems like a reduction in detail?

Hi, I have reverted this changeset as you have added duplicate/incorrect nodes. You added a subway station node on top of a an existing bus stop, and house 'A39' within the existing number 39 Burrows Road. You also added a tourist apartment with name=Airbnb, you should only map Airbnbs if they are signposted from the street and add the actual name, not just 'Airbnb'. Thanks, if you have any questions about this I would be happy to answer them.

amazing refining ❤️ #REVIEWED_GOOD #POSMCha

It has been discussed on the linked forum thread that these buildings were effectively imported from microsoft/BuildingFootprints with zero quality control - there are numerous examples of buildings of shambolic quality that were imported. This counts as an undiscussed import and therefore there's no obligation for me or any other mappers to clean up on behalf of the person that added them in the first place. As many of these buildings are terraced or semidetached houses anyway, the ai footprints don't represent individual houses anyway so the data is pretty worthless. It just gives the impression of a completed map, which removes the incentive for people to map actual high-quality buildings. Please raise any further thoughts you have in the thread. I will be happy to engage in any conversation there and has the benefit of being visible to all those who have shared their views already.

If an entire terrace has been drawn as a single building polygon, then yes, building=terrace is the right tag. (an individually drawn house as part of a terrace is building=house + house=terraced). My comment is more to suggest that where cadastral parcels are available and the imagery is clear, we should make every effort to split terraced and semidetached houses according to their property boundaries. Having multiple houses grouped together isn't particularly useful for navigation and makes it particularly difficult to add addresses when surveying. For example, where you have surveyed this terrace, way/1022193765, we do not know in which order those housenumbers appear. All unsplit terraces and semidetached houses will have to be divided up eventually, so it makes sense to do it as the buildings are being drawn in at the first instance. Splitting them straight away makes life a lot easier for other mappers down the road :)

Thanks for updating, bus relations look OK but as they're all ptv1 it doesn't really matter

Thank you :)

Amazing! The reason I asked is that where a named walking route uses an (unnamed) footpath, it should remain unnamed. I've gone ahead and completed the loop based on the linked map, although it's not very detailed so if there are any errors feel free to correct. There were a few missing footpaths needed (and there are more in the general area). If you enable the public rights of way overlay they are highlighted in green (red for bridleways). Maybe that's something you would be interested in adding.

This changeset has been reverted as explained in changeset/185865558. Compressing the opposing guided busway lanes into one was totally unnecessary and removed detail from the map. The opposing directions are physically separated from one another, so by common OSM standards are drawn as separate ways (i.e. like a two-track railway.) Changing the intermediary sections of highway=busway to highway=bus_guideway was also not correct, as bus_guideway should only be used for the sections that are actually guided.

Reverted as explained in changeset/185865558

This changeset has been reverted for the same reasons as in changeset/185865558, to restore the busway to its previous layout

This changeset was reverted for the same reasons as in changeset/185865558, for example deleting and redrawing Whipsnade Crossroads roundabout without copying across the junction=roundabout and maxspeed tags

This changeset has been reverted for the same reasons as in changeset/185865558, in order to restore the guided busway to its previous state

This changeset was reverted for the same reasons given in changeset/185865558, an example piece of detail that was lost by unnecessary deletion and merging was the maxheight=15'0" tag on the busway beneath Crawley Green Road.

Unfortunately I have had to revert this changeset in order to restore the guided busway to its original configuration - there were also some damaging edits made in this changeset. In a couple of places, you deleted roundabouts and redrew them in segments, but neglected to carry across existing tags such as junction=roundabout, maxspeed=40mph and maxweightrating:hgv=7.5. Best practice is to split the existing roundabout ways and then all tags will be copied to the new ways. This will also preserve the original geometry, for example the rounabout on Windsor Drive was made less detailed. There are also instances in which you have combined road segments with conflicting tags and lost detail for example with regards to the number of road lanes. For example, you deleted way/700206635 (3 lanes) and merged it with the adjacent 2 lane segment of Watling Street, removing the correct lane tags as it approaches the roundabout. You should only merge ways when the tags they have are exactly the same.