Thanks for the detailed response.

The reason I felt that they should be joined up is because if they are not, there is a gap between a path and field, in which case no enclosing way/landuse describes the area within that gap.

This is obviously not true: there is still something there. Ideally, I would seem that OSM should have absolutely no positions on the map that cannot be described by some enclosing landuse/feature, as in the real world it always can always be described by some enclosing feature.

Of course, this is only a nitpick, and the inconveniences caused by joining up 3 ways probably significantly outweigh this.

Thanks for the detailed response :)

Hello DataGatherGuy,

To remove a shop, you can't just remove the name, you should also remove the fact that it is a shop. You could have changed the building from a "convenience store" to a regular building.

However, looking online, it seems that this specific branch still exists.

https://finder.coop.co.uk/food/store/IP1-2NG/14-16-norwich-road

BCNorwich, I was just reviewing "review_requested=yes", and this did not show up as reviewed. Have you reviewed it using OSMCha, or did you just leave a comment.

Also, as for not joining up tracks with field outlines, what is your reasoning for this? In many cases, paths are effectively the border between one field and another. In that case isn't it technically the most correct to join up fields and paths?

I do realise however that when multiple ways are joined up it makes selecting them very difficult.

badly drawn houses
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/59351757

The path doesn't connect to anything on the south side. I did it from looking at the Bing imagery, but make sure you properly connect up the path next time.

Also, where did you get the name of this path?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/76536998

The cycleways weren't properly connected up with Heath Lane, so served no purpose in routing. I have fixed this now.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86722357

You also marked this business as a "retail building", but more accurately, considering this is a "printer" shop, you could have chosen "copyshop" (a shop that provides copying and printing services).

Thanks for the contribution, though! Every shop on the map is good.

You didn't make a building square in this changeset. You can do it by pressing "Q".
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90813808

these houses are drawn very badly
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/59106457

Hello spiregrain,

I was browsing the map of the UK randomly, and after finding this area in London with gardens and housenumbers, I decided to look at the changesets.

It seems like you have used "NLS" for your housenumbers. What is this? (Searching the web doesn't get any results). As far as I know, housenumbers have to be surveyed manually, as Ordnance survey refuse to release them under an open license.

If "NLS" is a source of housenumbers that does not require survey, then that would be really, really, really useful.

Is it only a local datasource?

added some houses in the "California" area

this one was by accident - hadn't really figured out how to use the software yet.

test upload via streetcomplete to see how it works.

test upload via streetcomplete to see how it works

Survey housenumbers in West Bixley using streetcomplete

NOTE: Naptan bus data was imported a long time ago, so many of the bus stops have disappeared / changed names. This will have to be fixed manually.