Hi,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I'm a bit at a loss as to what you intended with these edits. As far as I can see each new feature duplicated something which was already present on OSM (e.g., Lace Market Car Park, Broadmarsh, Coco Tang, Caffe Nero etc.) However, your addition on the former American Apparel shop with "SUBJECT PROPERTY" suggests that you may be wishing to annotate the map for a specific purpose.

If this is the case, the main OSM database is not the place to do it. All the data you added are now live and will show up in searches of the area (so 2 new cafes, a new car, a additional tapas bar etc). They probably will not show up on the main map because the upper case labels will clash with other labels & be removed. (Side note upper case labels are rarely used in OSM)

As I will now remove this data because it duplicates existing information, I have extracted your data and added it as an overlay on umap: http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/martife_254379#17/52.95160/-1.14307. I think this is probably close to what you wanted to achieve.

It's a shame your edits were duplicates because you obviously managed to make use of the shapes of buildings etc in a way that shows you understood how the editing worked.

If you have further questions we can continue the conversation here, but it is in public, or you can send me a message via the OSM messaging system.

Yours,

Jerry
SK53

The whole point is that these are mapped as points because there is no clear consensus about their boundaries. Any area will be approximate and not guaranteed to be one that others will arrive at. Such subjective information just doesn't belong in OSM. Just because it is possible to add information to OSM does not imply that it *should* be added.

As I said in my original post, wikipedia or wikidata are potential places to store such values (where they will usually be backed by some reference source).

I know it's quite some time ago, but I wondered if the footway (way/29261170#map=18/53.24775/-4.15419) which you mapped in this changeset is actually a public right of way (public footpath or similar) as indicated by the description? I think since that time we have started using designation=public_footpath to show these, It would be nice to update them if possible.

Please dont do this it is completely unnecessary. OSM stores geographical information: it is trivially easy to calculate the area. Furthermore as OSM gets improved incrementally areas may change, so if you used OSM to calculate the area the value you added might be wrong in the future. If you used some other source such as Wikipedia then you may also be wrong (what is the area of the Aral Sea), but in that case you may be violating the Ts&Cs which you agreed to when signing up.

Lastly fixed sizes for large sea areas are not useful because there will be multiple likely definitions (this is one reason why many of these are mapped as nodes not areas).

Areas should be avaialble on Wikidata. That is a suitable platform for this type of information.

Good spot. No looking at the aerial imagery it probably is not (also comparing with GSGS 4136). I suspect I added the stream tag before I cut the way into pieces. It is certainly a stream where it goes under the R241 and the upper road, as I ground surveyed those locations). I've removed the stream tag.

I'm reverting this edit because the building as formerly mapped is correct. As the name of the garden implies it sits on the roof of the building, which is built into the hillside and stepped down on the N side. I should know I worked there.

Track way/49166766 doesnt look consistent with aerial imagery (or lie of the land). Might it go in a slightly different direction?

Hi Will,

OSM Inspector is complaining about the Shipley Country Park relation. I think the issue is the wood over Coppice Pond marked as an inner which touches the outer way. The map on the DCC website indicates the private area round the pond is smaller than the wood, so it may be an issue of refining the mapping or the polygon needs some tweaks. I was going to do this, but realise I;m not familiar with that bit of the park.
jerry

I'm not sure of the best way to map gangways & stairs in the stadium. Probably use highway=footway (not pedestrian) and highway=steps. If these are a large area use area:highway=footway or steps in conjunction with a routeable way (steps in particular may be wide with many handrails to provide safety from crushes. I would only map the actual circulation routes (not the way to individual seats. For internal circulation inside the stadium indoor=corridor etc. For much of this very detailed micromapping it may be sensible to use domain specific tags, e.g., stadium=*. The logically completion point is when all seats are mapped.

I have no problem with micromapping details of stadia, for instance adding numbered areas of seating/rows etc, but they are not routable pedestrian areas. I have changed these to stadium=seating (no idea if the tag is in use, but seems sensible, and keeps the information) and altered the name to ref.

The polygons could be used with building:part to enable modelling of the stadium as a simple 3D building.

An aside for @bryanhousel: as I wrote this wikipage (osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Section) some years ago I'm definitely in favour of the basic idea.

I'd stick with the more familiar name "Britannia Stadium", although it's complicated because that too was a sponsorship name, but the Britannia name lasted for nearly 20 years, whereas the bet365 may be more fleeting. For older stadia not built with a sponsor with naming rights, the old name should always be preferred as this will be what it is called.

I'm afraid this is a huge mess. You have added a vast number of pedestrian highways in a stadium, which is incorrect and probably tagging for the renderer. These are presumably banks of seating. I doubt that you got this information from anywhere other than the website of the stadium or some other copyright source. Even a stadium hopper is not going to sit in every bank of seating. As others have said: your edit rate is too high for your level of understanding of some OSM concepts with the result that you are inadvertently removing good data and replacing it with data which may not be compatible with OSM. The very large number of edits may make life too hard to restore data you deleted and keep your edits.

You obviously have a specific project in mind: as SomeoneElse has said you need to add something on your profile about a) your goals & project; and b) sources of information you are using.

Hi, I've just come across the amazing detail of indoor mapping at the RNIB on Judd St. Someone from Guide Dogs for the Blind wants there offices to show separately. I plan to split the building along your indoor ways, but have no way of knowing if I've done this correctly (particularly the rooms on the Hastings St side). I'd appreciate if you can look over the change once I've made it).

Jerry

Vous avez ajouté deux tags - fishing_water_type et fishing_domain. Dans le wiki je ne peux pas trouver le sens de ces ettiquettes. Pouvais vous precisier les un peu, s.v.p.

Ones where I could see the green sign from the car, but couldn't read the lettering IIRC. One might be able to make a guess from old maps (bridleways usually shown as a double dotted line), or just possibly geograph images (although this one shows pretty much the view I had from the car http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4047579). We need to persuade Adam2 to come via Gainsborough to Bawtry when he does one of his Mapillary drives.

Hi, Good to see you adding buildings in the centre of Lynn. In order to say that a building is a shop you dont need to say shop=yes, but can use building=retail. The presence of shops as nodes and shop=yes on the buildings means that the shops are effectively there twice.

I dont know if it is possible in iD (the online editor), but some editors allow the tags from a node to be merged on to the building way.

I only had a weekend here when I was mainly doing something else so I only added shops as nodes.

Regards,

Jerry (aka SK53)

Hi Kev, Can I ping you to check again on the status of what used to @d2? Just trawling through the history of edits to Nottingham pubs & this stands out as open, but without a name. Cheers, Jerry

I'm still not sure about type=bridge, must send an email to the tagging list

Walton Dam a micropub I think, but like Chesterfield Alehouse not tagged as such.

Far for me to make a decision, but Walton looks rather more like a suburb than a village. I see it was originally mapped as a village by JonS way back when.