Is it really useful to put all these objects in the database? If the area needs surveying, why not just one area covering the area needed? Or, why not just one note?

FWIW, the area is (in reality) quite a mess of construction sites, warehouses of unclear access and use, etc. Not going to be easy to resolve all the demands implied by the fixmes.

Hi Robert - I emailed you on 16th Nov 2016 about this. Please see that email for a bit more info and discuss further if needed

Flukie, OK thanks. Well this is a shame - now the history of OSM edits is even _harder_ to understand!

Random? They're certainly spread over a large area!

It'd be helpful for others if you could say something a bit more substantial in your description, please? And ideally keep updates to relatively local chunks. (This is because inspecting OSM changes can be a bit clunky - the main view makes it look as if this edit includes most of the USA, most of Europe, and some of Africa/Russia, which is probably an exaggeration.)

Hi - thanks for your contributions!

Am I reading this right: you've added items for a few different countries, at once? If so, it's helpful if you try to keep them in separate changesets, relatively "local". (It makes it easier for other people to understand the edits.)

josm seems to have lost my intended changeset description: something like, "misc details from survey"

Good work! Was wondering when we could get that done.

(The standard map shows a few "bike store" named buildings. Might be neater to use "bike store" as description rather than name.)

Excellent, thanks for the prompt work!

Hi, thanks for the answer. I've just walked down to the site to look. The pub is still there and looks operational. It's been about 3-4 months since I went in it, but I'm in touch with local groups and I would definitely have heard if it had shut. (I know about the planning applications, there's one which is for the pub car park not the pub itself.) Also, the "Merchant Walk" site is a building site, a long way from completion.

What I propose to do is: use the reverter plugin to reinstate the pub and its building; make space for it by reshaping the top of your Merchants Way area; redesignate the Merchants Way area as landuse=construction. Sounds OK?

Hi @peregrination - it looks like you made a mistake here, you've deleted the Widow's Son pub at the North end, which is a listed building and is still there. How do we fix this? I think the edit needs reverting.

No, but the MPIO does not fit the meaning of landuse=commercial, neither in my commonsense understanding, nor the wiki description: "Use tag landuse=commercial to delineate areas of land used for commercial purposes." This land is NOT used for commercial purposes, so I recommend we do not use the tag.

I'm not happy with landuse=commercial, when the institute is not commercial: it is state-funded. It is _much_ stranger in my opinion to tag the site as if it was commercial than if it was a university. It implies the wrong affordances. The rest I am OK with.

I like amenity=research_institute, and would support tagging it that way, although I notice it's even less established than landuse=institutional !

landuse=institutional?

Hi. I am not German so I don't know what the best tagging for a Max-Planck-Institut is. It teaches PhDs but I think it is not officially a university?

Also you are right, it is not landuse=residential. This should be changed. (People DO live there, but only in the guesthouse.)

(I didn't change those tags myself, but it'd be good to tag it right!)

Ah - I was intending to upload my edits piecewise, but in this upload I accidentally uploaded all my remaining edits for the area, so the changeset comment is a bit inaccurate. All edits are intended tho.

Thanks for this, good mapping of this area

Hi - thanks for contributing! I noticed that some of the objects you added were buildings, but you hadn't marked them as buildings. In iD you need to choose one of the building types from the list on the left. I've tweaked these now.

@rfuegen OK, thanks for the info. no complaint from me

2 ways and 13 nodes is not a big edit. For such a small amount of objects, please could @SomeoneElse critique the CONTENT of the changes rather than trying to bring the heavy weight of Mechanical Edits Policy down on it? (I ask this irrespective of whether MEP is pertinent here.) It seems to me that the number of objects is so small that the problem here - if there is indeed a problem of content - is not "mechanical edit" but "armchair edit" (here I'm presuming @rfuegen did not visit all those places!)