Your new highway Way: 1516452463 duplicated the line of an existing highway and could cause disruption to routing. Thus, I've removed it.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your new road Way: 1516450247 duplicated the line of an existing highway and could cause disruption to routing. Thus I've removed it.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I don't think there is an art gallery here in the middle of this public pedestrian area. In fact, your website says "our retail gallery is primarily online". Thus a gallery can't be verified (osm.wiki/Verifiability#Planned_features) at this location. OSM seeks to map on the ground verifiable features.

Thus I think the POI should be removed.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

By the imagery available, your tracks look more like field boundaries than highways. Do you have any positive evidence of them being highways, have you spotted a vehicle somewhere?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I can definitely say it's not correct because a layer=-2 joins the next section tagged layer=2. Between the layers minus 2 and positive 2, there are layers minus 1, 0, positive 1, so minus 2 and positive 2 can't be joined.

It's a bit difficult to understand the layer tag; an explanation is given here:- layer=*

Bear in mind that layer=0 (which is usually ground level) does not usually need to be tagged, as in its absence it is implied.

It's difficult for me to visualise the layout as I've never been there. I can't work out the heights from the imagery shadows either. Do you have any photos?

Regards Bernard

Duplicated highway Way: Magam-Budgam, via Russu (1513478060) removed.

Hi, You have to section up the roller coaster track and properly layer them to reflect which section is above another. At the moment, OSM regards the tracks to cross over on the same layer, big crash. This is for both looping tracks.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunatly your new highways duplicated existing highways. This duplication could cause disruption to routing. Thus I've removed all the duplicated highways.

Regards Bernard.

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipOEl7gULIsVUGqxZou6x5JY6sECv2Dj-T0tTM3J
Screenshot of problems, blue triangles are duplicated highway sections.

You can also see them for the next few hours here:- https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=74.18045&lat=32.15780&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas

Regards Bernard

PS Changesets like this with 86 features are hard to find a specific feature. Thus OSM advice is ti limit a changeset to less than 20 features.

Hi, I've removed several sections of duplicated highways that you somehow mapped. Please try not to place a highway on top of an existing highway; this duplication could disrupt routing.

Regards Bernard.

Duplicated paths into the river removed.

Deleting features and re-mapping them in order to make corrections results in OSM history being deleted as well. It is better to amend/correct the existing features thus all history is maintained.

Regards Bernard.

Your highway path Way: 217602973 has many problems crossing over other highways as stated above. In many places it seems to duplicate existing highways which could disrupt routing.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, your new highways are placed on top of existing highways. This duplication would disrupt routing. The highway here does not look like a trunk road. Thus I've removed the duplicates.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Several of your footways were duplicated, crossing, and/or unjoined. I think I've corrected the problems.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

OSM is a live worldwide database from which hundreds of maps are compiled.

Your test was uploaded to the live database, and it added highways on top of existing highways, resulting in duplication. This duplication could result in disruption to routing. Thus, I've reverted your test changes.

Please only upload genuine, verifiable data.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

We are not allowed to copy Google Maps data into OSM. Google Maps is copyright-protected.

I would strongly suggest you revert your changes. I can do this for you if you wish.

Regards Bernard.

This changeset pertains to the Public Right of Way Aldenham FP 24. The HCC definitive map statement says it "Commences from parish boundary at junction with FP 50a (St. Stephen) E of Little Munden Farm thence E to join Restricted Byway/FP22."

Please look at the HCC interactive map, which shows all Public Rights of Way here:- https://webmaps.hertfordshire.gov.uk/row/row.htm?layers=[1:0,1,2,3,4] On that map search for ALDENHAM 024 This shows the line of the Right of Way in question. The map shows several other Rights of Ways leading to Little Munden Farm all of which have public access on foot.

Regards Bernard.

This is a public footpath, it is shown on the council website here:- https://webmaps.hertfordshire.gov.uk/row/row.htm?layers=[1:0,1,2,3,4] Therefore the is designated public access on foot (foot=designated tag). Thus, the access=no tag should not be used as it implies that there is no access whatever.

How come you "ride this section all the time" if there is no access?

Can you please show where the sign is and what exactly it says?

Regards Bernard.

For those sections that have not been eroded, they should still be available for public use as defined, unless there is an official traffic order made by the highway authority. The eroded parts although they may be unusable remain legally highways. It would be correct to tag the eroded parts as impassable, or highway=no.

Regards Bernard.