James Derrick (2021-04-18 13:43:47+00:00): Hi DaveF,

Thanks for your reply.

Open Street Map is a project created by a community, not just individuals. As a community we work collaboratively to improve the overall map, and an important part of this is both limited changesets and useful descriptive comments. A change set spanning from Cornwall to Northumberland makes it difficult for others to see what you have changed, and although it may be within one country, this makes you changes hard to track. 

Please upload your changes *before* you move to a new area.


This change set discussion centres on contributions to the overall map, rather than to validation software. I presume your point is related to if **landuse**=recreation_ground and/or **leisure**=recreation ground is most relevent in this instance?

You might see a lot of leisure=pitch as it came from a 2016 UK OSM quartly project guide*, but recreation_ground is much a better description. Based on both the wiki**, and TagInfo, I believe landuse=recreation_ground is the reccomended tag, but left both.
* https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2016_Q1_Project:_Schools
** https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=recreation_ground

It is a key principle of OpenStreetMap's free tagging system that unlimited tags are allowed.


A useful method to model landuse is to first define the boundary (e.g. barrier=fence), then align landuse areas on all sides with this way (no including highway ways). This gives a precise boundary with neither gaps nor overlap.

Although badly explained in my comment, that's what I meant by 'align the way to existing natural boundaries'. Your current modelling leaves gaps and overlap around the school boundaries, which I suggest can and should be improved.


My understanding is that areas such as car parking, public grass, and even schools are part of landuse=residential. Your edit suggests you may disagree - can I ask what your thoughts are here please as understanding then would help me edit with you?

Can I ask your thoughts as to why split an island 14x semi-detached houses, when the main area connects across Front Street please? Is it better to split the areas across Front Street?

This approach has created several 'islands' of Guidepost where one landuse=residential area existed before all of which are seperately named, e.g.:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/931433057
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/931433056
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/931433061

Although to me complex for a contiguous residential area, going with it, how about a place relation linking the 'islands' to the central place=village tag, moving the name up a level to:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/247792684

You seem to have deliverately mapped around areas such as Ashington Mews, making a complex island at the NW corner of Cleasewell Hill School (to avoid a multipolygon relation?)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2450268606/

These islands also don't align to natural boundaries with overlap and gaps, which to me needs more work - e.g. :
hedge: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629804778
landuse: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/931433056

I can assist, but would like to understand your thoughts behind the changeset first.


As for the name - friends who live there use both Guide Post and Guidepost. I originally went with one word, as that's what they suggested, however as the sign at the Western boundary says 'GUIDE POST', so perhaps name='Guide Post' alt_name='Guidepost'.

Thanks for reading this detailed discussion, and happy mapping,

James