Hello,

Please be aware that you are inadvertently making lots of duplications of short sections of highways. Please look here to see the many duplications represented by blue triangles:- http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=68.40684&lat=26.02513&zoom=13

These duplicated sections should be removed as they disrupt routing. Please try to correct your previous and future mapping. Do you need any help?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Route relation and motorway are removed. Please don't add false data.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've removed the road as it is a duplication of the existing highway.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Please don't be so silly, I've removed the motorway link road.

Regards Bernard.

A question if I may? Is the building still closed because of Covid19 as per the opening hours tag here?

Thanks.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

There's no need to duplicate data on both a building outline and a POI. I've amended the data to the outline where your amended name is. The name is rendered by most software.

Regards Bernard.

Sorry I didn't realise I'd downloaded the whole original changeset area. I reverted some deleted objects, and made several amendments in a couple of small areas.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please have regard to the warnings given to uploads. There are several warnings listed above.

Please don't delete and redraw objects that need correcting/amending. OSM practice is, when possible like here, to update/amend the existing object, Thus keeping all history of the object intact in the OSM database. No history is lost. I've reinstated the original objects.

Names in OSM should be the formal verifiable names. Descriptions like 'big house' and 'what is this' are not names and ought be removed. Tags like note=??? and description=??? are valid tags for this sort of thing.

A car park in school grounds is not a residential area nor would it be named 'car park'.

Lime Kiln Close wouldn't be a oneway road, otherwise, how would traffic get out? Also duplicated sections and drives tagged residential and name with lower case initial letters. Removed, and reinstated the original line.

I've made several amendments to suit OSM practice. There's a lot to learn in OSM mapping.

Best Regards Bernard.

Hi, OK thanks, it's now removed

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Can you give more info on the tourist apartment and a more precise position please? As it is a name only POI in the middle of a road isn't very helpful.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, That's done.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I see you've somehow ended up with three overlapping heath areas, Way: 1058640492, Way: 1058640493, and Way: 1058875735. Many of the heath area nodes are incorrectly joined to center lines of highways.

Your other heath area Way: 1058640491 is also joined onto highways and other features.

I've not amended anything so you can see the problems. I can make the amendments if you wish.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Thanks for responding, I've reverted the changes. That area was tagged as scrub. Is it scrub or a garden area? The images are not very clear.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Is there really a second Memorial Hall here? If not could you please revert your change to the OSM database? Need help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Please be aware that placing a new highway atop an existing highway is duplication which can disrupt routing. You've probably added these duplications inadvertently. please be advised that amendments/corrections to a feature should be made to the existing feature so as to keep all associated history intact. This has happened in this changeset and I think some others. To make it easier I'll refer to all duplicates here.

I've removed Way: Tregunnick Lane (1058381437), Way: Tregunnick Lane (1058381416), Way: Tregunnick Lane (1058381434), Way: Tregunnick Lane (1058381417), Way: Tregunnick Lane (1058381433), Way: Tregunnick Lane (1058381415) and Way: Tregunnick Lane (1058381414). I've added your new tags onto the existing highways.

Regards Bernard.

Yes, I understood it as meaning the road had gates on it, not that Gated Road was a name.

Hi, I've removed the ford from on top of the bridge Way: 1056170361. Disconnected the river from the bridge. Removed the duplicated section of highway taken by the bridge.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've sectioned off a section for the bridge on Usman Abad Road, then removed the bridge tags from the long sections of the remaining road.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, The gate tagged access=agricultural should logically stop drivers looking for your house going to that farm gate.

I've added addresses to three houses in the area Woodlands, Trevigue, and Springle House. I've added description tags to the drives going to the houses. For your house Woodlands, It seems you want to encourage delivery there so I've changed the access tag from private to delivery.

I think I understand that this is about what you want and it's as per OSM practice. I've tested the routing and it looks OK, (doesn't go via the gate). Please have a look and let me know if anything needs changing.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, Thanks for responding to my previous comment on Changeset: 120641439
I've now been able to go through all your changes up to and including this changeset. I've removed all the many duplicated sections of highway. I've amended or removed many of the permissive access tags.

As I said duplicate highways seriously disrupt routing. If a way needs amending or correcting it should be done to the existing way. Thus the history of the way is preserved in the OSM database. You ought not delete and redraw a highway, you ought not draw a new way atop of an existing way.

Access is tagged as permissive if one needs to gain permission before proceeding on a way. A highway, even a private highway ought not be tagged access=permissive if it is publicly accessible as I think these highways are. Further, I don't think that cycle access is restricted here as you indicate by adding bycycle=no. Just because you don't see any cycles in the KartaView imagery doesn't mean cycling is prohibited. The same logic applies to the foot=no, horse=no tags on some highways. Is pedestrian access actually banned?

Some of the tags you've added are unnecessary as by their absence they are implied. Like divider=no, parking=no and sidewalk=no, if not tagged these statements are implied.

Lastly, I think there were some occurrences of motor_vehicle=no where vehicles can clearly be seen on KartaView.

I apologise if the above may seem officious but I'm just trying to clearly make statements.

If you need any help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.