Hello michellefarns, welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for your contribution.

There are a couple of small issues I've noticed in this changeset. Firstly, there are a couple of nodes (node/2085120254 and node/27234954) where you have removed some of the tags, with the remaining tags not making sense by themselves. If the café and the car park no longer exist (and are not just temporarily shut), then these nodes should be deleted. Otherwise, the tags should be changed to include at least one tag specifying what type of thing the node actually represent.

Secondly, this changeset covers (at least) two separate unrelated groups of edits, which are in different countries. This makes it difficult for people to work out what has been affected by the changeset (e.g. the 'History' option on the website only shows the bounding box). In future I would encourage you to split your edits into separate changesets covering smaller geographical regions. In general, if two edits are unrelated (roughly speaking), then they should probably be in different changesets.

Finally, it is recommended that changesets include a tag indicating the source(s) used in the edit (e.g. things like 'local knowledge' or 'Esri imagery') - this makes it easier for other people to understand why someone made a particular change, and whether it might be a mistake.

Anyway, thanks for helping the project, and if you can fix those two nodes I mentioned, that would be great (and don't be afraid to ask for help if needed).

3: Oh, oops. Good investigating - when I fixed two issues with that boundary in May, but somehow missed the one I introduced myself in October (probably because I didn't look at the history of the split apart of the way).
1: I guess I must have oversimplified it in my memory - despite having looked at plans of the layout in the Northstowe planning documents only the day before. I think your subsequent changes are probably an improvement, but this is probably an example of where using a way to approximate an area is difficult.
4: That might help to reflect how it can actually be used in the current layout. I just had another look at the plans, and the ones on the website unhelpfully have a label covering this location. The other ones I can find just show it coming to a dead stop, as if they were expecting someone else to fill in the gap (as is happening near Northstowe).

Nice work - there are a few things here that I now realise I knew about but didn't notice or got wrong. For one thing, I now see that I misidentified a farm access as Scotland Drove, which explains why I couldn't find the features I was mapping in relation to.

A few minor issues I've noticed:
1. The mapping of the cycleways around the roundabout near Oakington suggests a more irregular layout than exists in practice - I think the mapping should be more symmetric and regular, with the current irregularity probably just an artifact of your GPS trace.
2. There are a few places where you've tweaked the cycleway alongside the A1307 to match your GPS trace, whilst not moving the carriageway, leaving an inconsistent spacing between them. The most obvious example is just east of the Swavesey junction. It would probably be good to make these match up again.
3. There's an administrative boundary running along the line of the A14 near Swavesey that was edited in this changeset. That was probably due to it accidentally sharing a node with a way. This ought to be reverted by removing any such nodes (you might need to check older history if the incorrect intersection has been around for a while).
4. I think the current tagging of the end of the cycleway near Girton will give weird routing for inbound cyclists (and possibly for outbound too) because the access and oneway restrictions force them to doubleback. I do think this is a slightly awkward area to map, and that this is a relection of this currently being an awkward area to actually cycle - hopefully we can get some better joined-up infrastructure here in the near future.
I might have a look at fixing some of these points myself later, but I don't have the time to do so right now.

https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/roads-and-pathways/heavy-or-abnormal-loads-on-the-highway has details of all restrictions in Cambridgeshire, though the maps on there probably can't be used directly as a source. (They can, I think, be used as a basis for identifying which locations you'd need to survey.) If there's a definitive description of the restrictions anywhere that's not based directly upon Ordnance Survey mapping, that might also be usable.

For reference, this issue has been reported previously on many occasions, including in
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2489

layer=0 is implied if no layer tag is present, so an explicit tag is not needed, and doesn't solve the actual problem, which is probably a bug in the renderer.

I'm puzzled. This changeset seems to suggest that the bidirectional cycleway that used to stop at the A505 end of the slip road has been extended under the bridge. However, the recently published list of "COVID-19 Temporary Cycling Proposals" from the Cambridgeshire County Council includes the item "Make [A505 slip road to Granta Park] one-way for with segregated bi-directional cycle lane". This implies that there isn't currently a cycle lane alongside the slip road. Furthermore, imagery suggests that there isn't currently room under the bridge for a segregated cycle lane and twoway motor traffic.

This confusion is made worse by the absence of source and comment tags in all of your changesets (including this one). With a good comment and source tag, I might have been able to work out whether the changeset was correct, or whether you had made a mistake. As it is, I have no idea waht source you used and whether you might have misinterpreted something you saw.

So I have two requests. Firstly, could you confirm the intent of this changeset, and let me (and other OSM users) know what source you used to determine the existence of the cycleway. (Also, if it does exist, then you should check the geometry near the roundabout, as the layout currently depicted would require cyclists to make two very sharp turns to reach the cycleway).

Secondly, can you please add meaningful changeset comments (and source tags) to all future changesets. This makes it much easier for other people (and also you in the future) to understand the changes you make, and fix any mistakes more quickly.

Thanks,
ACarlotti

Oops, I certainly did mean Hartington Grove - I was thinking that but wrote something different. And I meant the crossing on Hills Road, not the one on Cherry Hinton Road.
The discrepancy I'm talking about is fairly small. Judging by satellite imagery, I think the previous mapping had that crossing about 3m too far north (of the centre). You've deleted the old crossing node and added a new one which I think is about 17m too far north. (Incidentally, I think the edit history would be clearer if you'd moved the existing node, since it's the same physical point object).

What was your reason for moving the crossing near Huntingdon Road? As far as I can tell (based on memory and Esri Clarity imagery) the previously mapped location (south of the current one) was more accurate, and even that might have been slightly too far north.

Anyway, welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your initial contribution. Unfortunately on this occasion you happened to find one of the ways it is possibly to get the details subtly wrong.

I think this is technically wrong - the presence of "no entry" signs does not mean that any part of the road is actually one way. The "no entry" restriction is already modelled using a tun restriction, and since there are no "one way" signs on this stretch of road I think it shouldn't be tagged as oneway.

Have a look also at changeset/46602497, in which "Restrictions are implemented as turn restrictions as signed, rather than faked with short one-way ways."

I'm a bit confused about your intentions here. The no-right-turn restriction doesn't seem to make sense, and effectively duplicates the constraint of the no_u_turn restriction on Long Road. The other two no_u_turn restrictions are probably not necessary for correct routing, and shouldn't both be there - if there is a signposted restriction here, then it's probably best to map only the restriction turning back at the first traffic light.

You also seem to have added a redundant node to the boundary of the residential area.

I've noticed that you've tagged several roads as "oneway=no" in this changeset. This tag is redundant and should almost always be removed.
I came across this changeset having noticed some inconsistent tagging around VInery Way. Your edit suggests that this is no longer oneway, which seems surprising, and the description seems to suggest both that these are armchair edits and edits based on local knowledge, which seems a little contradictory and gives no clear indication as to what your source is.

Is Vinery Road actually a oneway street? If so, then it should be tagged as such, and this relation is then redundant. If not, then the oneway:bicycle tag on Vinery Road is redundant, and it would seem strange for there to be a restriction on the left-turn in but not the right-turn in.

This appears to be the extent of the variable speed limits proposed in the withdrawn application to make the A14 a motorway in 2019. However, the Cambridge Northern Bypass has new signs that appear to support a variable speed limit there as well.

Do you know if this is still proposed (and likely)? If so, could you amend the tags to a valid combination. If not, then you should probably delete it.

Oops, I forgot the variable speed limits weren't approved yet (they were originally part of the now-withdrawn application for conversion to motorway status). I'll fix the stuff I changed between Swavesey and Milton using lifecycle prefixes.

So the bridge is officially open now? At the moment it's not linked to anything open at the north end of the bridge - should the link to the roundabout be open now?

That's odd, but it matches the data I can find online (which shows the NB Fendon Road stop not being served by Citi 1). I wonder why they're still doing that.

Unhelpfully, I can't find a description online - Stagecoach's promos and offers page still describes the original diversions, and the service updates no longer mention the roundabout. I think there was an update to the service update article when the roundabout partly reopend, but that's gone now.

I've just noticed that this changeset uses the tag "maxspeed=variable". This is incorrect use of the maxspeed tag - in this instance you should instead use "maxspeed=70 mph" (if the normal limit is 70mph) and "maxspeed:variable=peak_traffic".