Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

There looks like there is something in the middle of the benches though. Do you know what it is?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, It looks like there are quite a few problems of duplicated sections of highways. Please see here:- https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-0.74236&lat=51.64749&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas

Could you have a look at remedies, please? Need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Willingham Wanderers Start Point is not a feature verifiable to any passing folk, only those in the know. Thus not a feature that ought be added to OSM. The park is tagged on it's outline. Thus I've removed the POI. The feature may be OK on other maps or you could make your own map from OSM data and save it offline.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Are you sure these individual houses should have been deleted? It doesn't seem right. If it was a mistake I can revert the deletions for you.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I just want to point out that a highway can't be access=private on a highway that is open to the public on foot. If the highways have vehicle restrictions then they could be tagged vehicle=(private, delivery or destination). The tag vehocle=private means that no vehicles are allowed at all.

I've removed the access=private tags.

Regards Bernard,

No need to delete service roads Just tag them as private same as the gates. They do exist.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap

You somehow moved the gate to block the unclassified highway. I've moved it off of the public highway to the side where I think it ought to be.

Regards Bernard.

It does exist, it is the definitive line of the highway, it is verifiable, it is a highway and will remain the highway until the line is legally amended. I walk this line whenever possible. When it's ploughed up I find an alternative route to overcome the obstruction, as I am allowed to do. The field edge is not a public highway.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've removed the house number from the name tag. The name tag is for a formal verifiable name.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed several duplicated sections of highway that you accidentally uploaded. Please try to avoid duplicating highways.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, There is access to the public footpath, (Way: 1131926552) at least on foot. Therefore the tag access=no is not valid. So I've removed the access=no tag. Did you mean to tag it as vehicle=no?

I also removed a duplicate section of the track near the ponds.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, This path is still a public right of way. You should report the lack of reinstatement to the county council. I've reinstated it.

Regards Bernard.

Duplicated section of the highway was removed.

Hi, The roundabout had several routes associated with it that needed to be kept intact. Also, you inadvertently made a duplicate highway. So I've reverted the changeset and then adjusted the layout to what I think you wanted.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

If some access is allowed, foot=yes, then it can't be access=no. I've removed the access=no tag.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, There's no need to duplicate the data on a POI, I've removed the POI and put all data on the building.

Regards Bernard.

Another duplicated way, Way: 1128438556 I've removed. Please go back and check your mapping.

Hi, A bicycle does not have a designated use status on a designated public footpath.

Hi,
Section 30(1) of the Countryside Act 1968 gives the public the right to ride a bicycle on any bridleway but, in exercising that right, cyclists must give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback. Section 30(4) provides that section 30(1) shall not affect any definition of “bridleway” in the Countryside Act 1968 or any other Act.

30 Riding of pedal bicycles on bridleways.

(1)Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, [F1not being a mechanically propelled vehicle], on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.

(2)Subsection (1) above has effect subject to any orders made by a local authority, and to any byelaws.

(3)The rights conferred by this section shall not affect the obligations of the highway authority, or of any other person, as respects the maintenance of the bridleway, and this section shall not create any obligation to do anything to facilitate the use of the bridleway by cyclists.

(4)Subsection (1) above shall not affect any definition of “bridleway” in this or any other Act.

So to state a use bicycle=yes is correct, but to state, bicycle=designated would not necessarily be correct as the original Highways Act did not designate cycling on a bridleway.

Your reference to NT activities seems to be a proposal of guidance by the landowner only, and is not based on law.

Regards Bernard.

Duplicated Way: 1128438559 is removed.