Hi Hansiepanzie,

Could you provide some more information about the source for this changeset, and whether you have a suitable licence to use it in OSM? (In general information in planning applications will still be subject to copyright, and thus cannot be used in OSM without explicit permission from the applicant.)

Also, could you look at the operator:wikidata tags you added to nodes such as node/14026659986 . This one is clearly not right, but what workflow did you use that caused this to happen?

Many thanks,
Robert.

Yes, so I've closed the note.

No, the Happisburgh Cart Gap toilets are these ones: way/132155794 further along the coast.

Not copy and past, but JOSM's auto-filling of new tags any failure to press tab at the right time. Still and error - thanks for spotting. Now fixed.

In this changeset you added some accessibility info to the toilets at node/2345013392 .

However, the OSM object is tagged with both amenity=toilets and disused:amenity=toilets. Do you know that the toilets were definitely open again when you made the edit? If so, it would be good to remove the disused:amenity=toilets tag.

In this changeset you added way/1458370800 tagged with both amenity=toilets and construction:amenity=toilets. Do you know if the toilets are open or under construction?

Just wondering if the amenity=toilets on way/1283570271 is correct...

In this changest, it looks like you changed amenity=yes to amenity=toilets to node/11399832370 . Are you sure this is correct? (I'm not sure what amenity=yes was supposed to mean, but if there are toilets there, I'd have thought it would be better to use two separate OSM objects.)

It's a bit boarderline, but I think I'd go for the brand being the car make they deal with, and the dealership name/group as being the operator. This fits with other franchise type arrangements we see in other sectors, albeit with the operator not as prominently advertised. We do see it sometimes elsewhere though, e.g. Banking Hubs run by The Post Office, and some branches of convenience stores are signed with a name as well as the symbol group brand.

(Either way though, we shouldn't have the original inconsistent tagging of brand=Kia, not:brand:wikidata=Q35349 .)

Hi,

In this changeset you added an amenity=toilets tag to way/909290949 but left in place an existing was:amenity=toilets tag.

Can you confirm that the toilets here have indeed re-opened? If so, we should remove the was:amenity tag.

Hmmm, yes. I didn't notice that when I added the brand:wikidata tag. From the existing tagging I think it unambiguously is the Kia brand. I assume that the not:brand:wikidata tag was added accidentally by someone using iD and trying to avoid imposing presets that they thought weren't appropriate. What are your thoughts?

I don't have any specialist knowledge about these locations; like I said I was just consolidating keys for consistency. If you think there's a better tagging for these features, there's nothing stopping you from updating them.

IIRC I was just consolidating a couple of different values that were being used to refer to the same thing, to make things consistent, possibly based on what had the largest current use in the UK taginfo. If there's an accepted proposal to use something different, then feel free to update the values.

No worries, and thanks for the quick response. I think this is a "Barclay's Local" then, a pop-up style of branch that they started using before banking hubs became a thing.

In this changeset you added the node node/13906541780 for a Barclay's only banking hub.

Are you sure this is one of the Post Office Run Banking hubs (which is open all week, and typically has reps from different banks present on different days) as opposed to a "Barclay's Local" (where it's just Barclay's running a pop-up branch on their own)?

Yes, I think that's the same overlay that JOSM has, which comes from https://osm.cycle.travel/ and I've messaged the author to see how up-to-date their data is.

I assume that you're referring to way/919129430 and the PRoW Overlay that's there by default in JOSM.

If so, yes, it does look like the two routes are not aligned. However I aligned the OSM way (roughly by eye) to the data I have at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/norfolk/kings-lynn-west-norfolk/kings-lynn/ . I've just updated it to the most recent from the Council (16th June 2026) at https://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ an the route there for King's Lynn BR 5 still shows it going through the running track. This also matches Norfolk CC's Highways map at https://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/highways/ .

So I would conclude that the PROW overlay is wrong in this case. Do you know what its provenance is and when the data in it was last updated?

Hi,

In this changeset you edited way/141215585 to change it to highway=footway + surface=asphalt , yet at both ends it connects to two highway=track ways.

Can I just check that the new tagging is correct? Does the way really have a hard asphalt surface now? It it really just a path rather than a farm track? (The highway=* tag should capture the physical characteristics of the way, irrespective of any legal designation.)

If the route is just a path now, what has happened to the farm track at either end?

Hi Dan,

In this changeset you added Costa Coffee brand tags to the cafe at node/4017996894 , but left its name as "The Conservatory". We'd usually only use those tags for a cafe that was a Costa Coffee branch, rather than one that happens to serve Costa Coffee as part of its offering. But I don't see the cafe listed in Costa's branch-finder, either an branch or as somewhere with a Costa Express machine.

Was it intentional to add the Costa brand tags there? Do you know / can you remember what the setup of the cafe is with regard to Costa?

Do you mean way/208399977 ?

In that case, I think the colour would have been pink dots or dashes not green (but then I am colour-blind so I might be mistaken). In any case, those dashes indicate restricted access, not public access.

I see that you've recently changed the access tag from access=destination to access=no. The latter indicates that no-one is allowed to use the drive, which is probably not correct. I assume that you and any guests/visitors are able to use it. In which case, either access=destination or access=private would be appropriate.

See access=* for more details of the different values of the access=* tag.