Thanks - I've deleted the node now.

The UUID in The Circuit is now located at the end of the green line here: https://osm.mathmos.net/defib/progress/IP/#18/52.06967/1.18306

Ok, thanks. So it's the amenity=toilets tag on the building that's wrong then...

In this changeset you edited way/224572897 adding amenity=toilets (and other tags) but leaving the previous tag disused:amenity=toilets .

Can you confirm that the toilets are back open again now, and so the disused:amenity=toilets can be removed?

In this changeset you edited way/265427738 adding amenity=toilets but leaving the previous tag disused:amenity=toilets .

Can you confirm that the toilets are back open again now, and so the disused:amenity=toilets can be removed?

In this changeset you added a check_date=* tag to node/2345013392 .

But this node is currently tagged with both amenity=toilets and disused:amenity=toilets .

Can you confirm whether they're currently open or not?

Yes, that's right. (And charge=* gives the amount you have to pay if there is a charge.)

Hi AbeOrch,

Are you able to check the fee/charging information on node/342579657 ?

In this changeset you added a charge=0 tag (indicating that there's no cost to use the toilets) but left in place an existing fee=no tag (indicating that there is a charge). This leaves the OSM data inconsistent about whether or not there is a cost.

Hi Craghead, could you check the location of the Defibrillator node/14045861247 that you added in this changeset? The defibrillator:location tag says it should be "At the side of path" but you've placed it in the middle of a field.

Hi Craghead, could you check the location of the Defibrillator node/14045846970 that you added in this changeset? You appear to have added it in the middle of the sea, about 200m from the shore.

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.