Hello,
Just wondered about the "embankment=yes" tag on the River Clyst way/285944892 . Is it "on an embankment" or does it "have embankments either side of it"? I'm currently trying to render the "embankment" tag for waterways. For highways and railways it's obvious (it means "on an embankment") but here's it's not so clear.
Best Regards,
Andy

It's actually not particularly relevant what the United Nations think. See this OSMF policy document for information: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf "The OpenStreetMap community operates under the “on the ground” principle, recording what is actually currently used in a particular area, giving pre­eminence to data collected in­situ".
There are many name tags available in other languages allowing people to make maps in other languages. The name tag should contain the name used by people that live there now.

I said "explicitly prohibits" because the Ts and Cs of the website talked about "personal and noncommercial use", which wouldn't be good enough for OSM. Now obviously exactly which data that applies to is a different question, but you've already asked them now, which is great :)

Just for info, osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Turkey suggests that foot=yes is the default on trunk roads in Turkey. If you've got an app that doesn't work without that tag, you probably need to fix the app.

Oh - and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
(I hadn't spotted that it was your first edit).

Hello, you've change the name on node/232172609 as can be seen by http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=232172609 . Can you explain the reason for the change?

Unfortunately I don't think that "are publicly funded are required to be open on most things" will be good enough. Also, https://www.networkrail.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/ seems to explicitly prohibit use here.
What I'd suggest is that you contact them and obtain an explicit waiver or similar - see osm.wiki/Import/GettingPermission for more information.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks. What's the licence for the NESA data?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks. What I've done elsewhere (but not yet here) for this sort of problem is to create a larger "landuse=forest" or "landuse=forestry" area, usually with a name, and smaller natural=wood areas within, usually with leaf_type and other info. Around here what is the "forest area" is often pretty much orthogonal to who owns it or how it is administered.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hi,
I've changed Dog and Duck from an "amenity=pub" with a name of "... (closed)" to a "disused:amenity=pub" based on the change here - that should avoid people accidentally going to it thinking that it is still a pub!
Best Regards,
Andy

Hi,
What was broken here? I'm not suggesting that something wasn't, just asking what it was so that the problem doesn't happen again :)
Best Regards,
Andy

Hi,
Just wondered if way/316865419/history etc. was still "landuse=railway" if the Bevercotes branch is no longer in use?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hi Steve,
Just wondering about the leisure=park tag on here - I'm not convinced that it really is a "leisure=park" in the laid-out-parkland sense that's described at leisure=park . I'll admit it's a few years since I've been here, but I'd be surprised if it's changed that much.
Hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to understand how things are tagged as they are.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks - I've changed it to a boundary=protected_area (though national_park also seems to be used for state parks round here too). One more question - what about Mount Diablo State Park relation/187121 ? That always struck me as being similar - an area of countryside similar to the rest of the hills east of the Bay / 101 that just happens to have been made into a state park?
Thanks again,
Andy

Hello BayMapper,
I notice you've added back the "leisure=park" tag to MacKerricher State Park relation/7603526/history .
It's a while since I've been there, but I'm pretty sure really not a "park" in the "leisure=park" sense (for info see the note on leisure=park ). If it is a state park (and it obviously is) then it really needs some sort of tagging that indicates that, not tagging it as "leisure=park" which is a different sort of thing altogether.
Also, it'd be really helpful to other mappers if you could use changeset comments that are more meaningful than just "altered stuff.", as they would help other people to see what you've changed and why.
Hope you don't mind me mentioning this; just trying to help; if you've got any other questions please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hi - just wondered about node/4943307720 - is it a highway=crossing or an amenity=bicycle_parking? I'm guessing it can't be both (and it's a couple of years since I visited, so I can't help as to which, unfortunately).
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Just to let you know, OSM's Data Working Group got a complaint about the duplication in this area (which you may also have seen mentioned in the talk-us post at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-December/018216.html ), so thank you for tiding up some of the problems here. The mapper who made these original edits is long gone from OSM, so what remains is largely a "data tidying exercise".

I've deleted the main duplicate Shasta-Trinity NF way http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=487220873 (the original relation/70010/ hasn't been edited for 12 months as so is presumably OK). I'll also look at the smaller duplicates added by changeset/47829109 .

It'd be great if other people could have a look at some of the duplicates highlighted within the https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-December/018216.html list post with a view to removing duplicates in the other ones too.

There's also scope to map the landuse etc. within the national forest boundaries such as way/418301052 better, but that will need more local mappers with local knowledge. Currently in that example there's only way/64298706 , which is another import. It's clear for example that the trees in the imagery at osm.org/edit#map=17/40.61757/-122.94615 don't match what has been imported.

So thanks again, and if you've got any questions about this (or anything else) please drop an email to the DWG via data@osmfoundation.org.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (DWG member and occasional hiker in Northern California)

Hello,
Just to let you know, OSM's Data Working Group got a complaint about the duplication in this area (which you may also have seen mentioned in the talk-us post at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-December/018216.html ), so thank you for tiding up some of the problems here. The mapper who made these original edits is long gone from OSM, so what remains is largely a "data tidying exercise".

I've deleted the main duplicate Shasta-Trinity NF way http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=487220873 (the original relation/70010/ hasn't been edited for 12 months as so is presumably OK). I'll also look at the smaller duplicates added by changeset/47829109 .

It'd be great if other people could have a look at some of the duplicates highlighted within the https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-December/018216.html list post with a view to removing duplicates in the other ones too.

There's also scope to map the landuse etc. within the national forest boundaries such as way/418301052 better, but that will need more local mappers with local knowledge. Currently in that example there's only way/64298706 , which is another import. It's clear for example that the trees in the imagery at osm.org/edit#map=17/40.61757/-122.94615 don't match what has been imported.

So thanks again, and if you've got any questions about this (or anything else) please drop an email to the DWG via data@osmfoundation.org.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (DWG member and occasional hiker in Northern California)

Hi,
I'm guessing that "embarkment_type" on way/534838009 should perhaps be "embankment_type"?
Best Regards,
Andy

Any news on the best tagging for Crumhenge?