Thanks for adding this description - does it refer to a water tap in Bridge End harbour (node/13824244501)? For some reason this point is in the middle of the Sound!

Local .osm changeset uploaded; I've retracted all these buildings (the way IDs listed above) from Esri: changeset/183079918

I've prepared a local .osm changeset file using JOSM that retraces these buildings from Esri imagery, and replaces the existing ones with misleading tagging. I'll check with the HotOSM project team whether this is OK to upload, and when.

Confirmed, thanks (I also passed by recently to check -- but hadn't gotten around to removing them)

Strictly speaking I did copy these from objects that originated from the given 'source:*'. Does that mean that, in fact, we should retain the source information on them?

The list of object IDs is:

w:1518988409
w:1518988410
w:1518988411
w:1518988412
w:1518988413
w:1518988414
w:1518988415
w:1518988416
w:1518988417
w:1518988418
w:1518988419
w:1518988420
w:1518988421
w:1518988422
w:1518988423
w:1518988424
w:1518988425
w:1518988426
w:1518988427
w:1518988428
w:1518988429
w:1518988430
w:1518988431
w:1518988432
w:1518990293

Buildings added by this changeset were copy-pasted; their "source:*" tags are therefore inaccurate. I realised this while continuing another area.

I'll try to figure out how to batch delete those tags soon.

I hadn't noticed that - thanks!

Note: this node was recently adjusted to information=map and I think it's useful to keep the information that it is tactile. However, because this one has 3D elements, I think I'll retag it as information=tactile_model in a few moments. See also: changeset/180456012

On second thought: I think information=tactile_model may more accurate; I will apply one more edit to that node.

Thanks for these updates - NB: I have reverted one change from this changeset, to adjust information=map back to information=tactile_map on node node/5331191656

After questioning this, I went and resurveyed, and the wheelchair=no tagging is appropriate. The defibrillator cabinet is mounted at a height that is only really suitable from the top of two adjacent steps, and those same steps also obstruct wheelchair access to the cabinet.

NB: I forgot to mention: I browsed the artist's website to find the name and start_date for this artwork. I remembered the artist's name thanks to knowing about other installations of theirs in Edinburgh.

Is the wheelchair=no tagging on node/7098651864 intentional here? From a recent look I think that the cabinet is at a height that would be operable from a wheelchair, but I am not certain.

Thanks!

Thank you!

For Mereway (e.g. 4189557 and 1159463221), as a dual_carriageway=yes I think that bicycle=yes is implied. With that in mind and also the presence of a dedicated cycle path nearby (67827330), I would suggest removing the bicycle=yes tagging from the dual carriageway -- especially as parts of it are tagged lit=no in addition.

I learned of this changeset from a forum post at: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/i-have-a-problem-with-a-user-being-very-rigid-with-legal-interpretation-of-access-rules/139067/27

@[Pete Owens] tagging the footway as bicycle=no appears to have the effect of causing the CycleStreets router to suggest to the user that they should ride on the road regardless of the riding style (quiet / fast) that they select.

Is that what you intended, or would bicycle=dismount be more appropriate?

Ok, thanks - I'll trust you on this. If you know whether there is a good/clear pedestrian path to the beginning of the trail from the bus stop on Hillfoots Road, that could help - but don't worry. I do remember the service buses up to the monument (white, multi-passenger golf-cart style buses if I remember correctly).

Thanks - I agree that the step feature -- including handrails on at least one wall of the building -- could be refined. To begin with I have simplified the shape: changeset/180523240

Thank you!