Hi, Sorry but again warnings above that ought to be looked at.

Way: 1128438557 duplicates Way: 1128433780 so I've removed it.

Way: 1128433780 also twice crosses a stream, is there possibly a bridge or ford here?

Way: 1128438558 duplicates Way: 1128438558 so I've removed it.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You have several warnings listed above regarding crossing highways and waterways. It would be really good practice to try and resolve these issues.

Regarding the public bridleway (Way: 1128433774) foot is designated on a public bridleway, I've amended it.
Also Way: 1128438551 duplicates Way: 1128433774, I've removed the duplication.

Regards Bernard

Hi, I think these are semi detached houses, so if drawn as one building then the tag is building=residential. A building that is a single house would be tagged building=house.

If you zoom in further you will be able to draw the buildings much more accurately. And to be even neater use the square-up feature.

Need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The school was tagged as per OSM best practice with the main tags being on the school premises outline. Please see here for more details:- amenity=school

Thus I've reverted this changeset.

Regards Bernard

Hi, In the absence of a oneway tag it is implied that oneway=no, thus adding oneway=no is not usually necessary. There are some rare exceptional cases but not here.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The surface tag value for the paths would be simply concrete. I've amended the tags.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, The NS section is a public highway, if it is ploughed up the status remains, you can still walk it as I have many times. You should report it to NCC.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Your residential area is a strange shape and also self-intersecting. Secondly, this area is within an existing large residential area, this one:- relation/14008874#map=14/51.4459/0.0953&layers=N
Thus the new area is not needed (it's duplication) so I've removed it.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap, a live worldwide database from which many maps are compiled.

I've reverted this changeset because it contains obvious fiction. Please only upload genuine verifiable features to OSM. You can keep your study project offline without corrupting OSM.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your addition placed the business as for the whole building which I don't think is correct. It also dragged the building outline out of shape.

I've reinstated the building shape and made a POI of the business. Please check that the POI is correctly positioned in the building.

Hope this is OK, Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed the duplicated and fiction roads.

Hi, I see you are still adding fiction, (a very short motorway in a residential area), So I'll now revert the changes.

Please don't spoil our map.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

OSM is a live worldwide database from which maps are compiled. Please don't add fiction, you can map fiction or personal data offline without uploading it.

Thus I've removed your test features.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your new highways don't match any aerial imagery. Are they perhaps test additions, features for your own personal reference, or maybe just fiction? If they are not true on the ground features then they should be removed. I can remove them for you if you wish.

You can map personal features and keep them offline, they should not be uploaded to the live worldwide database.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, There are several warnings of problems with the mapping of this path as listed above. Could you have a look, please?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've joined your footpath to the highway at the south end.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, May I please refer you to my comment on your previous changeset?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

May I ask what reasoning makes this a footway rather than a track? The reason for asking is that it is tagged as motor_vehicle=private which indicates a highway status greater than a footway that accommodates vehicle traffic.

I am aware of the Highways Act 1980 definition of a footway but for OSM purposes it is usual to tag a highway as for its greater purpose. Thus a track or road can be a tagged designation=public_footpath while being tagged as a track or road. The fact that the way is a public_footpath does not automatically mean it ought be tagged a footway.

On aerial imagery, the way looks like a track and is actually drawn as a track on Ordnance Survey maps.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, If as you suggest on the Resolved note #2992283 and your edit in this changeset, Saint Athanasius Coptic Orthodox Church (116611783, v7) is now rebuilt, then the tag "razed:building=church" ought be removed.

I can't verify the rebuilding so I'll not amend the tagging.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, It looks like there is something wrong with the mapping of the tee area and the three tee nodes. Tee area is Way: 1125234227, three tee nodes are Node: 10267793109, Node: 10270112217 and Node: 10270112218.

Could you have a look and remedy, please?

Regards Bernard.