Hi, please make sure to provide a useful changeset comment describing what you’ve changed and why.

“Automatically generated summary” is not a good changeset comment.

See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments :)

Great, thanks :)

Heya, this looks good. :)

Note that building=semidetached_house is for when a single area represents both halves of a semi. The tagging for when you have two areas (one for each half of the semi) is building=house house=semi-detached.

A few of these buildings are tagged as building=shed but from aerial imagery they look like they might be building=garage instead. I could be wrong though, just wanted to check :)

Hiya, what’s your source for this change? Bing Streetside shows a “private road no access” sign at the junction with the A591, which is consistent with the edit which originally added access=private (changeset/51787582).

Why do you think it should not be tagged as access=private? That’s the kind of information which should go into your changeset comment (see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments) :)

Thanks

No worries, building part tagging is quite niche and most contributors don’t know about it. For someone who’s only done ~40 edits you’re doing some really high quality stuff, so thank you for your attention to detail!

I (and a few others locally) keep an eye on all edits in the NW of England. Mostly it’s to stop spam, but it also means we can fix typos and try to help new contributors along where possible. :)

Thanks! I thought it would be something like that; easily done. :)

Heya, thanks for these improvements.

Are you sure that the gate node/13759714395 is meant to be on the cycle path? I don’t remember there being any gates on the path. Is it meant to be in a wall parallel to the path, or on the path but always open? Ta :)

So what’s the plan for fixing the information so it is useful and doesn’t break waymarkedtrails.org?

I’m minded to revert this change as you’re removing useful information from the map for (presumably?) the sake of one data consumer. Although without answers to the questions above it’s hard to be sure.

Heya, thanks for this, it’s an interesting contribution (and an interesting building!).

I’ve modified your edit slightly to use building:part tagging for the different parts of the building, to avoid common tags like the address and name being duplicated.

I’ve also tweaked the tagging of the overhead corridor, although I’m less sure about the best way to tag these, so suggestions welcome for further improvements to that. :)

See changeset/181771198 and building:part=*

Hope that’s OK, let me know if anything doesn’t look right!

Looks like the documentation for roof:direction was changed since I first read it. I’ll use the abbreviated versions in future, thanks for pointing it out.

Whoops, I did try and copy in the Circuit ref, but apparently I messed up somewhere and didn’t notice before saving. Thanks for checking!

No worries, they were easy to amend as everything was nicely drawn and joined up properly already!

I didn’t change the join line of the semis as that was a bit more work, but it would be great if you could do so. I typically align the join to the (aligned) aerial imagery, rather than necessarily to the Cadastral Parcels line. Sometimes the detail of the parcels are imperfect, as they have been traced off various old records at various times by different authorities; or land has changed hands informally or since they were last updated. On average though, the Parcels are high quality and correctly aligned to ground truth.

It looks like you have worked this out already, but watch out for parallax error in the imagery too — always align to the visible base of a building or fence :)

Heya, welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits around Furness. :)

If you’re going to be adding significant amounts of geometry (like mapping houses), please make sure to align the aerial imagery to a source of ground truth before starting to edit. The easiest way to do this is to align it to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer (in the Background Settings panel on the right in the ID editor).

Aerial imagery is not aligned by default, as the alignment varies across the country (even between villages) and changes when the imagery is updated.

The offset for the Bing imagery for this area of Swarthmoor at the moment looks like -3.02, -0.91 metres.

I’ve updated your changes in changeset/181452067 to realign them.

Hope that makes sense! I realise it’s a bit complicated to begin with, but it’s important for keeping the map accurate. Happy to answer any questions :)

Thanks for the clarification, and for the follow-up edits to split the building. Nice work :)

Hiya, it looks like this changeset just removes tags from this industrial building, rather than adding detail.

Why remove the tags? Have Anord Mardix moved out of this building?

Please take a look at osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments about how to write changeset comments which are a bit more helpful to others editing locally, thanks :)

If they were included in the relation using an appropriate role for the member then I don't see a reason to remove them. What errors were being seen and in what app?

From a quick look these all look like National Trust walking routes, and I believe they want to highlight the recommended toilets, car park, etc. for each walk.

Hiya, this change covers half of England. It’s better to keep edits small and local if possible. What features are you removing from trails, and why? Thanks :)

Super, thanks for checking and fixing it!

As a bit of a friendly hint, ‘survey’ is not a particularly descriptive changeset comment for others to work out what you changed and why. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for some guidance on good changeset comments. :)

(Track fixed in changeset/181178097 for anyone reading this in future)

Hiya, are you sure this road is publicly accessible by foot/bike/horse? It’s inside the security fence of Sellafield. Has something changed locally compared to aerial imagery? Ta