Hi, thanks for spotting this! I was able to trace back the changeset that deleted it — it was unrelated, so I assume the user did it by mistake. I've restored that original object, which had a more accurate geometry and better tags, and deleted your new replacement.

I've reverted your changes, restoring things as they were. If you think some of the bus stops are not correct, you can edit them again.

Editing the map is to update and improve the data for everyone. If you need to do something for personal use only, you will need a different tool.

You also deleted a cemetery. Please let me know if these were mistakes, and if you need help in reverting your changes.

Hi. Why have you deleted the roads under constructions in the new residential development? The Bing image is out of date, if that's what you saw.

(Sorry for the numbers of comments). Thinking about it, I think it will be more appropriate to map this as a mini-roundabout on a node, instead of the full loop.

Oh, I see what you mean now! Sorry. I was thinking of the roundabout mapped as a node. You are right, I will fix it.

What do you mean by "inside"? "sideway=both" means on both sides of the street (left and right), which is the case here: the sidewalk goes around the roundabout on both sides. Have I got this wrong?

Hi. A viewpoint is already mapped just nearby, where the bench is (there might also be a plaque?).
Regarding the name: Jarn Mound is more to the south (way/55802655). Despite its elevated position, it is not currently a viewpoint, because of overgrown trees (at least last time I have been).

Hi. A gate can be mapped by adding "barrier=gate" to a node.
If people should not be walking down a path, it is probably appropriate to also add "access=private" to the path/road itself.

Yes, that makes sense. Done. changeset/131742909

Hi. The quad is on a rooftop. I'm not sure what the best way to tag that is, but I think it should still be mapped as a building first.

Hi. This changeset seems to have deleted the buildings you had added. Just as a heads up, assuming it wasn't intentional.

Hi! I have a question about the mapping of the Oxford LTNs.
I was wondering whether introducing a fictional cycle path segment is the appropriate way. Wouldn't having bollards mapped on the road path -- with appropriate access tags -- be more accurate and usable?
Thanks.

Sure. I reverted the changeset (changeset/120013272), which should be cleaner that a manual correction (there was also a minor error in a footpath).
Enjoy mapping. All the best.

No worries. Thanks for asking clarification. Let me know if you need help with reverting the changeset.

Hi! The note is saying: this road is officially designated as primary, but it is de facto a tertiary road; therefore, we decided to map the reality on the ground (tertiary), and not that on paper (primary), consistently with OSM principles.
I personally agree with the note – mapping St Aldate's and the High Street as a primary road is misleading. From the note, it sounds like there was some deliberation on that, so I think it is best to revert your change, and you can re-open a discussion if you feel strongly about it.

Grazie per la risposta. Ero curioso di sapere se vi fosse stata una discussione più approfondita sul caso (purtroppo non seguo i luoghi di discussione italiani). Un criterio così meccanico, senza relazione al luogo, può essere in contrasto con altri principi della mappa.

Dalla più generica wiki internazionale (osm.wiki/Tag%3Aplace%3Dcity#place.3Dcity_vs_place.3Dtown):

> In some regions, the population of settlements is used to differentiate place=town and place=city, but this practice varies between countries. In sparsely populated regions, many settlements tagged place=city are less populous than in regions with high population density.

Questo si potrebbe applicare alle province italiane di montagna, dove questi centri abitati (chiamati localmente città, per distinguerli dai paesi) hanno una rilevanza ben maggiore rispetto a ben più popolose "town" della periferia di Milano, per fare un esempio.

> As of mid 2019, 63% of place=city have a population=* tag, of which the median value is 130,000, and 95% of place=city have a population=* value over 20,000. However, 13% have a population=* value between 20,000 and 50,000.

I confronti internazionali possono essere difficili, perché i calcoli di popolazione variano con diverse dimensioni dei comuni di riferimento, ma secondo le statische sopra, l'uso per centri più piccoli non è poi così raro.

(Bisogna poi vedere se i valori di popolazione sono corretti o aggiornati).

Ciao.

Ciao. Potresti fornire una fonte su dove è stato raggiunto consenso su questo criterio?
Grazie.

Hi. Thanks for your fixes to swimming pool tags. However, if possible, I would like to encourage some more care in checking the local cases.

In this example, the building exists but is disused, so the amenity does not. In a nearby case in Swinford, it was a swimming pool maintenance company in a commercial area (it also moved to a new location), not a swimming pool. I corrected both.

Best wishes.

"Oxford City Centre" is an 'alt_name' in this relation relation/13028443 so I thought it would appear in a search. Perhaps the same could be done with the node? I think "City Centre" is the best name for the suburb object (not all cities have mapped their centre suburb, but if they do it's without repetition of the city name, e.g. Bristol node/6126689739 ; the same is true for cities in other countries). But an 'alt_name' which includes the city name can help with searches.

This is to refer to the whole part of the city, including most of the central colleges and some residential areas, not just the retail area.
If you want to refer to the retail area only, like in the Reading example, then the name tag would go on the retail area object which covers Cornmarket, etc., not on the suburb.
I guess it is possible, but I am not sure that it would be totally appropriate in this case, since the overall retail area is more specifically divided already in Covered Market, Clarendon Centre, Westgate, Castle quarter.

So, if you agree I would leave "City Centre" as primary name and include "Oxford City Centre" as alt_name for the suburb.

Thanks for your contribution to the map. Have fun. All the best.