Thanks for your response on my other query.

Same question here: a water point is for camper vehicles (usually) to pick up fresh water. Is that what you meant? As it's behind the locked gate, I imagine you meant something else?

Also, not sure why Skanska is mentioned as the "Name". Can you help?

Thanks!

amenity=water_point
name=Skanska Construction UK Limited
operator=Anglian Water

Thanks, I have modified the tags so it's not a leisure use.

note link should be note/5204215

I was probably unclear. The full circle is strictly inaccurate, because there is no circular anything at that point in the cathedral. The altar end if the nave roof is a half circle , and I left that half circle in place. But from the outside (ie, on the 3D rendering you linked to) you can’t tell the difference either way. (Unless you spin your model to look up from below the ground but only one individual could have that vantage point!)

Hi Pipiruda,

Thanks for your edit! Can I check what you meant to tag here? A water park is for leisure use, whereas I think this is near an industrial water treatment works.

Happy mapping,

eteb3

source also includes OSSV

two substantive edits, done together in error

this was in substance two edits, rolled together by accident. 1/ house numbering at St Mary's Court, Ely; 2/ updates to Masjid Salafi, Birmingham

Hi mueschel

Thanks for these tag updates - almost certainly all of them are my tags.

Just to note that there is a charity register in each of the UK's legal jurisdictions. In my view, charities in England & Wales should have ref:GB-EAW: as prefix and infix.

See discussion here, if you're not aware:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/what-tags-for-charity-registration-numbers/144218

Your change is an improvement on what I had, ofc. If you're doing such improvements again, would it be worth using the jurisdiction-specific country code?

Thanks anyway

eteb3

Resolved note #2786419

Hi Robert,

It seems you may well have walked the bridge which is noted as closed here:

note/2835897

Do you recall if you did, and if it's' therefore open again?

Thanks

Edward

Hi Andy

Just drawing your attention to my comment on a subsequent cs on this element, which you may have views on:

changeset/118125904

Cheers, eteb3

Hi ianc,

Just messaging to draw your attention to two notes, which claim a path you edited is "not a footpath" - presumably meaning, "not a public right of way".

I see you added the designation after Andy Mackay marked it "permissive".

Are you confident that's accurate, and the anonymous note-poster is wrong? Or could it be that it's better to revert to "permissive"?

Cheers,

eteb3

notes: osm.org/note=5408801
osm.org/note=5408805

Hi again conifermapper,

After another visit to the Mynydd Du Forest recently, I'm revising the map again. My edits in this area, recently and in previous years, have been based on walking it on the ground.

I hear what you say about tagging the cutlines: there is indeed a tag for that.

Some features that should be cutlines, you added as paths. Could you please change those paths to cutlines where that is *clearly* the situation on the ground?

Where it's not clear that it is a cutline, it would be better to delete your additions - although note I have edited some ways that I have verified as paths by walking them, and of course those should stay, as reflecting reality on the ground.

I think it is more appropriate for you to fix them than to ask someone else to do that.

I realise these edits are two years old now, and probably your mapping has developed since then. But it is worth re-emphasising that it is generally better to not add features where there is doubt, rather than to enthusiastically add features which turn out to be a misrepresentation of reality.

Also to note, the OS map is not as up-to-date for forest area as Bing imagery; and Bing imagery doesn't show the most recent felling (an extensive area I will try to add soon). Which is to say, observed reality on the ground is always the best source; otherwise proceed with caution.

Kind regards,

eteb3

Hi conifermapper,

Can you clarify your source for the natural=cliff you added on this changeset? Was it only from aerial imagery?

I climbed Nant Yr Ychen to Bwlch Gwyllt Meirch recently and didn't come across any cliffs on that route. I'm not aware of any at all in the Black Mountains, except the odd short length of outcrop at Rhos Dirion.

Thank you and happy mapping.

eteb3

Source = survey and aerial imagery

Source = survey and aerial imagery

Source = survey and aerial imagery

Source = survey and aerial imagery

Thanks. I’ll leave as is. I’ve added a “sic” note to the node.