Thanks for adding this section, I have changed the tagging from highway=busway to highway=service + bus=designated in changeset/185871133.
'busway' is more intended for a purpose-built bus-only road as part of a BRT system :)

Hi, is the Miners Way a signposted walking route as shown in the linked pdf?

Please respond to my question about why you have completely remapped the busway and removed the parallel sections in changeset/185794485 before updating any more relations or making related changes

You have also changed a number of unguided sections from highway=busway to highway=bus_guideway, and changed bus=no to bus=designated when regular buses are not permitted on guided sections. There is currently a thread discussing the access tagging here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/luton-guided-busway/145421

Why have you done this? I spent a long time splitting the physically separate guided busway sections into parallel ways and updating all the route relations. You have just undone all that work and you have not updated the route relations correctly. What's the problem with having two parallel guided busway ways?

Thank you for opening a thread, I have written a reply there with some more information.

Why have you deleted the existing buildings and then re-added new buildings? This is obviously not correct. I have removed name=Bulding as this is a descriptive name, and removed height=1 as it is very unlikely these buildings are 1 metre tall.

Thanks for clarifying the access - I have changed it to access=destination as this is the correct tag for 'access only' roads. Many satnavs do not use OSM so it is unlikely that this will completely resolve the problem in general :)

I have reverted all your changesets as they are vandalism - please do not add fictional entries.

I have reverted this changeset in changeset/185683529 as the tagging changes you have made are not correct. You removed a number of barrier=bus_gate, these are clearly visible on aerial imagery and prevent cars from driving onto the guided busway. You removed bus:guided=designated, which conveys that the busways are intended for guided buses. You changed bus=no to bus=designated, which is not correct as regular buses cannot use these busways, they are exclusively for guided buses as indicated by signage and road markings.

If journey planners are broken, it is their responsibility to adjust their software to take into account correct OSM tagging. It is not correct to change OSM tagging to fix a third party routing issue. Please raise the issue with the websites concerned, or start a discussion on community.osm.org before changing established tagging. Thank you.

🫶

If I was a DWG member I would give you a 10 year block for whatever that was

You weren't in my dreams, but your horrendous tagging mistakes were 💅

Apology accepted on this occasion, Mr. finn-hound

Hi, thanks for adding these buildings, I have made some adjustments here. It would be great going forwards if terraced and semidetached houses would be drawn as individual, connected buildings, rather than merged together. You can use OSMUK cadastral parcels to highlight property boundaries for this. Please also use 'Q' to square buildings once they are drawn. There are a few buildings here which should have been tagged building=apartments, if you are unsure what type of building it is please use building=yes rather than building=house. Thanks.

Hi, I've corrected the tags here. As the airport is under construction, it's not appropriate to use aeroway=aerodrome as this implies the airport is open.

Is number 30 Upper King Street now a vacant unit? If so, it would be best tagged as shop=vacant to preserve the address node.

If you switch to Esri imagery you can see some of the foundations, might help you to align them better :)

These tunnels are a one-of-a-kind system, highway=service is the most accurate classification considering their size and private usage. I wouldn't use busway either considering Teslas are hardly buses.

Hi, thanks for adding these very detailed buildings! Would you be able to ensure that extensions are merged with their parent building, please? For example, way/1535610169/ is not a separate building. You can of course use building:part=yes areas to represent the sections of different height.

Could I also ask that you add some short but meaningful changeset comments to explain what you're changing? The four hashtags don't convey any information (not sure what Malmö has to do with London?). Thanks.