Shard Drive (if it exists wouldn't have an address. It might have a tag postal_code=??? but not an addr:postcode=???

I notice also that the road doubles back on itself. Going from the Crescent into the field then back again.

Hi, I am wondering, is Shard Drive a new residential highway? I can find no reference to it on the Caulderdale Council website nor any imagery. Can you show its existence please?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, The house numbers are not the house names, fiction removed again. Please desist in adding incorrect data to OSM.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, the duplicate edges are reported on OSM Inspector Routing layer:- http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-1.38640&lat=53.04646&zoom=14
Two are still there, they will disappear after today.

My thinking is that Jessop Lodge is a place/locality name but some folk disagree with this. It's actually the whole building block that has the name Jessop Lodge and the numbers are of the flats/apartments of the block.

Hi, Royal Mail postcode finder and derbyshire.gov.uk, give the addresses as:-
(Numbers 1 to 8) Jessop Lodge
Jessop Street
Codnor
Ripley
DE5 9SW

So it seems that Jessop Lodge does not exist as a street, rather the four buildings comprising Jessop Lodge are situated on Jessop Street.

Your small piece of highway was visible and was joined to and on the same line as the existing highway, making for duplication.

I don't know if there is a correct answer but it shouldn't be duplication of a highway. I would think a change to the building addresses of the small residential area would be better.

Regards Bernard.

I've removed the highway section you placed on top of an existing highway as it's duplication.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Can you say why you placed The Walkway, a service highway, on top of Grosvenor Road making a duplicate highway section?

You've done similar duplications recently. I've now removed several sections of highway atop of highway.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've reverted this changeset because it deleted the fountain.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Please respond to the comments on your first changeset changeset/117989468

There are problems with your mapping that you're likely not aware of, so could you please pause editing till the situation is resolved.

In case you don't see this comment I've asked the OSM Data working group to contact you regarding the situation.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've placed the 11km path Way: 1035355669 entirely on top of existing highways. This is duplication and it disrupts routing. Thus I've removed it.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've drawn the road over buildings and another highway, it's doubtful if this is a boardwalk. Thus I've removed SV ROAD.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed the duplicate section of Way: 195/4/10 (1036027892) and connected it to the A4260 rather than the boundary line that you joined it onto. I also amended the path descriptions and names, those numbers are the County Code not a name.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed the duplicated highway.

Regards Bernard.

Footpath removed as it was mapped on top of the existing highways and on the canal.

Hi, You are placing highway footpath on top of existing highways making duplication that disrupts routing. I've removed this duplication but I think there are more.

Please don't make a highway on top of another highway. If a way needs correcting please make the correction to the existing way as per OSM practice.

Regards Bernard.

Hi,
My edit of this way was to remove a duplicated section of the path, I also removed a duplicated highway=construction section of highway to the north.

The fee tag was added by the original mapper lamoukate in Changeset: 105233209.

I would agree with removing the fee tag, it doesn't look correct.

Regards Bernard.

Hi please consider the comment to your previous changeset changeset/117865871#map=16/51.7856/-1.5027

You're continuing to add fictional names and duplicated highways.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Please take a look here at a lot of duplicated sections of highway that you've mapped:- https://tinyurl.com/2hv277by

Could you please remedy these duplications? Also remove the fiction names from the driveways. The footpaths don't usually have individual formal names so unless there are verifiable formal footpath names ought also be removed.

The OSM tag leisure=garden refers to all types of gardens, are these ones publicly accessible? If not they should be tagged access=private.

There are several instances where you've tagged a house address with the number in the addr:housename= tag and the name=tag, an example is Way: 88 (1031032473) the house number should only be in the addr:housenumber= tag.

I hope you can remedy these problems, if you need help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi Billy, Thanks for responding. It's not a mess the learning curve went a bit astray!

I look at fixing routing problems, (among other things), and noticed the duplication problems reported here:- https://tinyurl.com/2ekrjuxf I didn't pick this up for any particular reason I just like to help out.

Duplicated highways can mess up routing and logically there can only be one highway on the ground on any one line. To overcome the different names of routes that are on the same section of highway relations are used. Thus only one section of highway is mapped but that section can be included in several relations. Each relation holds the route name and all individual sections of highway making up that route. Various other things can be added to the relation as described here:- https://tinyurl.com/mz8h6jzj (One thing folk often forget is that a hiking route can be over different types of highway, path, track, road, etc, a route relation can hold various types of highway.)

I hope this makes sense. Looking again at the park paths I wonder if they are routes as they don't make circles? Are they on a website?

Regards Bernard