Please revert the changes where you added fictional road tunnels, as you said you would do.

Hi, thanks for adding the name, just a note to say that building=church is for buildings constructed as a church, you should also add amenity=place_of_worship and religion=christian to active churches :)

Hi, you managed to paste a der Spiegel article in a number of roof:shape tags here (way/1436379982/history/1), I've corrected it.

You can get problems if you don't download the whole area covered by a multipolygon (just downloading all members is not enough) in case there are other multipolygons using the same ways as outers. (You could delete a way that is still needed by another MP). Normally the multipoly-gone plugin (https://github.com/watmildon/multipoly-gone) should take care of this by downloading all referrers of the ways used by a specific multipolygon. But there was clearly a problem in this area. When I redid this changeset, I downloaded all multipolygons in the whole region, and didn't get any conflicts.

Thanks for adding these cycling routes! :)

Thanks for making these updates (they are clearly razed rather than abandoned) - just a note to say while you've updated railway=abandoned to railway=razed, you haven't updated abandoned:railway=rail to razed:railway=rail, which should also be updated. Or, you could just delete them entirely, nonexistent former railways should be mapped in OpenHistoricalMap instead :)

Please take more care when tracing buildings, they should usually be rectangular with no extra nodes along straight walls. You should use 'Q' to square buildings once they have been drawn.

For your information I've removed some of this tagging - as this is a film set, we can't use tags like amenity=pub, because there's not really a pub here. See changeset/181823599 for those changes.

Hi, is the reason for these tag changes that you're trying to get these former stations to render on OpenRailwayMap? If that's the case, it would be better to map these in OpenHistoricalMap instead (which the new version of ORM uses as a source). OSM is only intended for mapping current features, with an exception for recently demolished features.

Thanks for updating your local area, just a note to say that you don't need to be drawing multiple residential areas if they are all connected to each other, one combined blob is fine. For that reason I've merged a few of these connected residential areas together. But splitting along roads and public footpaths is fine, the landuse here is very detailed now :)

Hi, I thought we reached a consensus on the forums not to excessively divide residential landuse up like this, I've put a new reply there asking for opinions about if we should be mapping at a plot level: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/individual-residential-landuse-for-each-house-or-street-good-or-bad/136497/95

Hi, sorry for the delay. If building:colour is tagged on the building, we can assume that it applies to all building parts, so it doesn't need to be added to each building part. When it comes to building:levels, you must tag that on all building parts, even if it is the same as the surrounding osm.wiki/Tag:building=. I hope you also got some clear answers on the forum thread. Danke für dein Verständnis :)

There's no rush to redo anything, but ideally the terraces you've mapped would be redone as individual houses to match other parts of Chelmsford. Buildings are quite time consuming to trace, so if you'd like any help in the area let me know :)

That's ok, if you've visited somewhere and use google maps to e.g. check a spelling that's fine, but generally as it's copyrighted we can't use it.

Hi, I'm not sure what happened here but quite a few ways got duplicated, I've run the validator over this area so hopefully I've removed them all now, e.g. duplicate hedges, streams and farm tracks. Maybe you know something

Thanks for adding this, I've moved all the tags over from the library's old location at number 87.

I still don't agree with this - I don't think we achieved a consensus on the forums to map a banking hub with 6 separate amenity=bank nodes.

Hi, what is the source for these housenames/numbers, have you surveyed them? You've linked the Essex prow map which has a copyrighted Ordnance Survey basemap, so this can only be used for mapping rights of way and nothing else. Thanks

Thanks for updating this development! For your information, you can change the background imagery to Esri World Imagery, this is more up to date than Bing and shows the housing development in a more advanced stage :)

Hi, I've removed this abandoned railway as it no longer has any trace remaining. Please only map railways as abandoned if they have some visible track or sleepers along their route. Features in OSM need to be verifiable on the ground. If you'd like to record abandoned railways, OpenHistoricalMap is the perfect place to do that.