Hi, this edit has changed OSM data from being correct to being incorrect. You can see this by looking at the centre lines of roads on the aerial imagery. The task instructions tell you to consider "when roads positioning does not reflect reality" but you have made this edit so that roads no longer reflect reality.

Hi, this edit has changed OSM data from being correct to being incorrect. You can see this by looking at the centre lines of roads on the aerial imagery. The task instructions tell you to consider "when roads positioning does not reflect reality" but you have made this edit so that roads no longer reflect reality.

Hi, this edit has changed OSM data from being correct to being incorrect. You can see this by looking at the centre lines of roads on the aerial imagery. The task instructions tell you to consider "when roads positioning does not reflect reality" but you have made this edit so that roads no longer reflect reality.

Hi, I don't think this edit was a fix. On the imagery you can see that the centre lines of the minor lines don't line up perfectly - so "very close junction" is actually how this is in real life, even if maproullette doesn't like it.

hi there, it looks like you removed descriptive tags from a number of roads in this change - this left untagged ways. I guess that wasn't your intention?

Hi, are you sure these roads should be tagged as secondary? Feels like the original "service" was more accurate

Actually, don't worry, I've just seen that you're a new user, so I'll just make the change for you.

Hi, are you saying that you're taking map information from Google? That's not allowed.

The route may be long if this border crossing is closed, but apparently it's closed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria%E2%80%93Morocco_border

Please revert your changes.

Did this break the water relation? relation/339441

Think I've resolved that now. Thanks for the help.

Just for completeness, here's the existing residential area that is now overlain by others: relation/12580038

Hi, I've noticed this changeset because I was looking to tidy Abingdon a little. Did you create overlapping residential areas on top of the existing residential? The new areas don't seem to have any unique tags (name, etc), so I'm not sure what this adds? For example: way/1077284302

hi, I've reverted your change as you made the street one-way towards a dead end. How would anyone drive out?
What sources did you use for the change? The previous edit to this road, removing the one-way tag was done to reflect the Oxford LTN physical changes.

I agree with Gyrwa on this one.

:thumbsup:

Certainly shouldn't be primary ways, unless something very bizarre happening on the south coast. I see the changset also removed a number of ways, and given what's happened to the remaining ways I'd suggest reverting the whole thing.

Thanks for assuming that I'm just being impatient.

Could you let me know what the "old relation" is? I'm looking at

relation/166570
Version #759 · Changeset #87297916

Is there an older one?

The Cotswolds don't appear to render any more? Commenting here not because I blame this changeset, but it's just the most recent on the relation.

Hi, I believe this change broke Lake Victoria - it doesn't seem to be showing on the map any more. I see it has a tag "place: islet" and no mention of being a body of water. Presumably that wasn't always the case?

Hi! Are you sure about the location of this one?