Hi, personally I think it would be easier if large residential polygons were split up into smaller sections rather than turning them into multipolygons; I split up the residential areas in Porthcawl in this changeset changeset/183080253 :)

Hi, just to let you know I've reorganised tagging of Universities in Wales; each university is now a single multipolygon with amenity=university. Each campus is now tagged education=campus. Please see changeset/183220662 for the changes made to Cardiff University :)

Thank you for making this change, it's correct that there should only be one university here, as College Lane and de Havilland campuses are not individual universities.

Hi, just to let you know I've reorganised tagging of Universities in Wales; each university is now a single multipolygon with amenity=university. Each campus is now tagged education=campus. Please see changeset/183089472 for the changes made to Aberystwyth :)

Hi, thanks for updating this development. Just a note to say I've adjusted how the named area of Great Milton Park is laid out. The relation you created (relation/20657648) still covers the whole area, but I have moved landuse=residential onto smaller polygons so as to exclude roads and non-residential areas. A second note, when you are tracing buildings, you can use 'Q' to square the corners, this will make them look neater and be more accurate. If you have any questions or problems, feel free to ask :).

Has there been any discussion to support further changes to maritime boundaries here? (Your previous edits were already reverted.) You have also changed the border of Spain despite not mentioning this in your changeset comment.

Haha, thanks for your kind words. Yes I would like to run the country 😆. You're right that private paths shouldn't be deleted, for the reasons you mention. I've also found it useful when hiking to know which paths you can't turn down, too. Hopefully (it may take some time) the tag changes filter down to LandApp and other map services show that these paths are private. There are some maps which may show private paths the same as public paths, there is of course nothing we can do about that. As for people changing them back to access=permissive, they might do this if there are no signs indicating that they are private. If there are signs or locked gates, it would of course be wrong to change these back to access=private.

As for being an owner of, OSM, no. It's a non-profit, so there isn't really an owner, just an elected Board. I'm just a regular contributor who saw the notes you created, and wanted to make sure the map accurately represents reality. Thanks for being understanding, and I hope that clears some things up :)

Hi, I have made a few corrections to your edits. Please take note of the following:
It isn't always necessary to add separate roads for turn lanes - this should only be done if they are separated from the main road by bollards or kerbs. You shouldn't use highway=motorway_link either, this is only for highway on-ramps.
When you draw roads or driveways crossing sidewalks, you should ensure that they are connected where they intersect.
highway=residential should not be used for very minor roads like driveways to houses or in car parks - use highway=service instead.
If you have any questions or need any help, feel free to ask.

Hi, I've had to remove a lot of the tracks you'd mapped in farmland around here, as these are tramlines for planting and spraying crops, they are liable to change frequently. As the layout can change, we shouldn't map them. Please also take care to ensure the connectivity of footpaths, where you deleted and redrew way/1448448829 it was tagged as a private track where it connects to Green Lane - disrupting pedestrian routing. If you have any questions or need any help, please feel free to ask.

Hi, just a note to say that construction sites like this don't need anything in the name= tag, just a note is fine as you also added.

Please use 'Q' to square buildings; this will make them more accurate and will look neater.

Hi, please make sure to add in crossings at intersections, otherwise routing will not work properly. Also, sidewalks within gated estates should be tagged access=private, in the same way that the roads are.

Hi, I have reverted this changeset as you should not enter (no road markings) in the name field. If you want to convey that a road is unmarked, use road_markings=no, which I have added instead.

Hi, please see changeset/182689403, this person strongly believes that the path you updated here and paths around are private. If you don't believe that's correct, let me know why and maybe we can work it out. I have at least made sure the public footpaths through here are correct.

Hi, I have made some modifications to the tagging you've used to represent these private paths - it is not appropriate to name them 'PRIVATE LAND - NO TRESPASSING'. Instead, just changing them to access=private, removing foot=yes and changing horse=yes to horse=no/private is sufficient to convey the access allowed here. access=no should only be used if it is physically impossible to use these paths. Regardless, all the paths you intended to mark as private are now correctly recorded as such. I will also send a comment to the person who removed the private tags that you added previously. If you have any further questions or need help feel free to ask.

Hi, thanks for adding these buildings (and streetcompleting). Just a note to say that there's a couple things you can do to make your buildings more accurate - the first is to enable OSMUK Cadastral Parcels in the background settings which will highlight property boundaries, this is useful for where to split semidetached and terraced houses. For example, way/1509548659 should be drawn as four connected building=house ways. Secondly, you can use 'Q' to square buildings, this will make them more accurate and look neater. If you have any questions or need any help feel free to ask :)

although it says it's deprecated, it's commonly used in the UK and shouldn't be changed without good reason. Personally, I would use historic=railway_station for historic stations that still have visible buildings or platforms. I would only use abandoned:railway=station where tracks still run through the station and the buildings haven't been repurposed to something else.

the problem is that railway= is a top-level tag and conflicts with highway tags. railtrail=yes is a good tag to indicate that the bridleway follows a former railbed without misleading consumers that there are abandoned tracks remaining, which there clearly isn't. At the very least this should be changed to railway=razed to reflect the fact that the tracks were lifted almost 100 years ago.

I've had a look at some of it, seems to be some convincing arguments not to map features that no longer exist. Certainly this route should be tagged as railway=razed (or dismantled) as the tracks have been lifted and there is no physical prescence anymore.

If the railway is gone here, it should really be removed from OSM and only mapped in OHM (which it already is). railway=abandoned should only be used if there are extant features such as tracks, sleepers or ballast; that doesn't appear to be the case here. Likewise, any dismantled or razed sections shouldn't be in OSM as by definition they have been demolished and no longer exist.