Not sure how access=no on a path where the tag is not needed is an improvement.

Right, but this is the only part of the towpath around here which has access=no. And with bike/foot/horse=yes, the access=no tag seems redundant since vehicles can't go on a highway=path anyway. So unless the towpath is closed, think it's best to remove it (it'll render properly on the map as well)

What's the reason for way/24653034 being access=no?

I first saw it on the talk-gb mailing list, seems like https://osmuk.org/cadastral-parcels/ explains more.

It's OS data so should be fairly accurate. Though I suppose the main thing is to have a consistency in the town (with whatever background is used) to avoid various bits being out of alignment!

Hi, just a comment on your use of fixmes. It's probably better to use the OSM notes feature as people are more likely to notice them with the notes layer rather than the fixme tag in the data. :)

Sorry to be a pain, but would you mind turning on the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer and aligning Bing first? :) Seems to be about 3,-4.5 offset here.

Hi, thanks for the edit.
Is this retail development now open? If so the landuse=construction should be removed, and Home Bargains could be tagged as shop=variety_store.

Hi, welcome back to OSM :) Just wanted to let you know that generally the new Bing imagery is slightly out of alignment with the old Bing (which is now Esri clarity).

If you have a look at background > overlays in the editor, you can turn on "OSMUK Cadastral Parcels" to help align Bing - I used about 4,-3 in this changeset: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=106160816

Cheers

Why have you changed this to a motorway?

Hmm, I considered deli for another refillery shop but the wiki mentions fine foods, meats, cheeses, etc.
Suppose a refillery shop is like a mini-supermarket but just with a different method of shopping for products?

Not local to WL though I do keep an eye on what's happening in OSM :)

I would say if it's expected to be changed for a decent amount of time - a few months perhaps? - and you can keep an eye out and revert it back if the speed limits return to what they were, then I'd say change them in OSM.

Hi, I noticed this road had been updated from 20 to 30mph changeset/104148939
I suspect the mapper who did it is not local as they mentioned GPS data in a reply to me: changeset/104210067
So is the road definitely 20mph?

Hi, what is your source for this edit - have you surveyed this on the ground? Because someone changed this to 20 mph last month

Hi, I'm assuming this is a factory and you can't actually buy anything from here? If so the shop tag should be removed way/81080794

Sorry for the delay. I think ctait's baseline of old Bing (which is now available as Esri clarity) seems to be fairly close to the cadastral parcels. See Allanton for example way/228795680 - needs about (1.0,-2.7) for Bing.

Your numbers for Duns seem about right, though it might be even less of an offset. At least it's not as large as some places I've seen (upwards of 3)! Just wanted to make sure you were aware :)

Hi, the path was incomplete because I couldn't see a path the last time I was up there. Have you walked the route of the path you have added?

Be careful, these roads you added are in fact paths (I've fixed them)

Not sure if you are aware but there is now a OSMUK Cadastral Parcels overlay in iD/JOSM to help align Bing imagery.

Only mentioning it as I noticed this building and walls are slightly out of alignment with old Bing (Esri clarity) way/924067327#map=19/55.77896/-2.29845&layers=N

Fortunately doesn't seem like the offset is that large though :-)

It may well be private land but I highly doubt that's its name, removed.

Removed that as it's clearly just a footway