this reverts changeset/56146484

hi Lamb, the new little section of road should prob be a unclassified road instead of a trunk link
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156099809

vandalism reverted in changeset: 156197126

hi there, this is not correct. I've removed all instances of srcName and official_name from power lines. srcName was the name of the substation where the power line originated, it wasnt meant to be included as the origin substation can be found with the "wpd_source_site" tag and it name derived from that. i'll correct my import scripts to avoid this in future.

Sorry I should have include the node. Here it is node/12142984445

Hi there, I would you like to say that you could avoid OS Maps when contributing to OSM. With exception of OS OpenData and out of copyright maps, OS Maps are copyrighted and are not compatible with OSM's licence. osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey

Hi there,
What is your source for this change?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155869680

Hi there, it appears you've connected your new path to the power cable
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155900265

Hi there Nathan,
Could you please provide a source for the overtaking restriction. On imagery, the road appears to have a broken centre line, allowing overtaking.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155948958

Hi Ade,
Could you please add more descriptive comments to your changesets in future. its hard to tell what you are changing.

Hi Changsta,
You should try to limit changesets to a single local area.

this reverts changeset #155834346

for future reference in that case you would mark a section of a stream with `tunnel=culvet` and `layer=-1`. for now i would recommend placing a note here to make the survey request more visible

there's no point waiting for a survey for stuff like this especially when a lot of OSM was imported rather than surveyed.

In this case you have enough information to justify the change. a Ford is somewhere where a waterway crosses a roadway and at present the waterway crosses the roadway without any node which is considered incorrect.

Hi Rosey,
this is incorrect. everything I'm about to say is mostly UK specific. addr:unit should be used with a named building. addr:place is used when multiple buildings belong to a "place" that is not a street.

I was going to use this as an example but just discovered I forgot to map it :D
way/1298656985#map=19/51.774907/-3.300622
but here, there are multiple named houses on this street but the street has no name, so i'll be adding "addr:place=Butetown" when I map it addr:place is used as a replacement for addr:street for these cases.

Addresses shouldn't be split between objects. so in this case, all the addr tags should be deleted from the building and added to each of the entrances so each entrance has a complete address. or to put it another way the building shouldn't have an address since no one would ever write a letter to the building as a whole so it shouldn't have any address tags.
Hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Kits

forgive my bad grammar on the last message, what I meant to say is this, the simplest way to fix this would be to add a point where the waterway and path meet, then tag that point as a ford.

Hi there Ken,
the simplest way to fix this would be to add a point where the path where the waterway and path meet, then tag that point as a ford.
Kind regards,
Kits

Hello Anarchy,
Can you please add a comment when make a changeset so others are able to tell what you've changed at a glance.

westfield rd also appears to be part of this private road area. I would consider doing access=permissive instead of private as there is nothing really stopping or discouraging people walking or using these lanes
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155523964

Hi there,
`managed` is not the correct tag here. I think the one you want is `operator`
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155529197