Is there pedestrian and cycle access past this closure point? If so, then you need to add a short length of cycleway to connect this up.

Hello Bazzagazza101, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I've just been having a look at this changeset, and there several changes within it that look wrong to me. Can you help explain what you've done, so we can work together to resolve any mistakes you've made?
1. Can you clarify what source you used for the population of Bygrave? I notice that you also added a link to the Wikipedia article; Wikipedia is not an allowed source for OpenStreetMap, because the licenses are incompatible (see the warning near the top of osm.wiki/Collaboration_with_Wikipedia for more information). Therefore, if Wikipedia was your source, that part of your change will need to be reverted.
2. You've added a speed limit of 10mph to a road in Stotfold. I'm pretty sure 10mph isn't a legallly enforceable speed limit in the UK, so can you explain why you added this?
3. You've tagged Purbeck Close in Bedford to indicate the pedestrians and horses are banned from using the road. I would be very surprised if pedestrians are banned from what looks like an ordinary residential road.
4. You've tagged the school as "religion=all". This is not a standard use of the religion key; it would be better to have no religion tag.

It would be better to split up changes like this into separate changesets (one for each golf course affected). As it is, the changeset description here implies that you're only changing one golf course, which together with the large changeset bounding box suggests that you could have made some accidental changes elsewhere (though having looked more closely, I don't actually think that was the case here).

Apparently this bridge is not officially open yet (but in practice it is now being used).

I don't know how you reshaped it, but your changeset definitely created a multipolygon where there wasn't a multipolygon before. I've restored this to the original polygon, and deleted the node that was shared with the powerline.
From your description (and other knowledge of the plans), I now think it was fine to delete the future lake.

A few comments.
Firstly, is there any reason you've used a multipolygon to represent the farmland between the two lagoons?
Secondly, you've moved a node onto the powerline. Since powerlines and farmland boundaries don't interact at all, they shouldn't share a node. (Also, moving the node, instead of creating a new one, made it a bit harder for me to understhe history of the field boundary way.)
Finally, if the other lake is planned but not yet built, and has already been mapped, then it would probably be better to use lifecycle prefixes to represent this, instead of deleting the way - e.g change "natural=water,water=lake" to "planned:natural=water,planned:water=lake" (or "contruction:..." if it's already under construction).

I suggest mentioning buses in your changeset comments (e.g. "Update bus route 45a"), so that other people know what you're editing without looking at the contents of the changeset. (I thought it might be building numbers at first).

This changeset also contains a misinterpreation of aerial imagery. The outline you've drawn for the middle building is clearly showing the outline on Bing imagery, which was not taken directly overhead. The actual footprint on the ground is smaller - you've effectively mapped the roof in a different location to the ground floor, and shown it all as a single outline.

Also, I'm pretty sure there is some stuff between this middle building and the large one to the right, though I can't tell what shape it is. (So it could be a building filling the entire gap, or it could just be one or two covered walkways). If you can't tell what it is, then it might be worth adding a note to the map so someone else can fix it later.

I think this is all the feedback I have to offer for now, but feel free to ask me more questions.

I think there are some issues here too. The building to the west of High Street in particular looks as though it has been drawn by tracing around the approximate shape of a roof as viewed from an angle, and different roof heights and shadows might have been misinterpreted.
There are also more example of accidently creating new nodes that are shared by multiple ways when they probably should be.

Also, if you're editing an existing building, it is almost always better retain the original OSM feature, and just edit the tags and move or replace the nodes as needed. This makes it much better to see the history of the building, and identify it as something that was already mapped, rather than something you're mapping for the first time.

I don't know how to do it in iD, but the wiki lists some ways of doing it in other editors:
osm.wiki/Change_rollback

Also, there's lot of other useful advice on the wiki. Some pages that might be particularly relevant to you are:
osm.wiki/Using_Imagery
and
osm.wiki/Roof_modelling

To conclude, this changeset seems to worsen the mapping of these buildings, and I think it should be reverted, unless you have any good reason that it shouldn't be reverted.

Hi daniel,
I've been looking at a few of your changesets (this is something I usually do when commenting on someone's changeset), and I think there is almost certainly a problem with this changeset too.
Before this changeset, the buildings mostly had perpendicular walls, which appears to be correct based on aerial imagery here (and the ones that weren't perpendicular on the map possibly should have been). Your changeset has now made the buildings a lot wonkier, with many walls no longer being perpendicular. In general, if a building has perpendicular walls in reality, then you should ensure this is reflected in the map, and I think most editors have tools to help you do this accurately.

Additionally, the general effect of this changeset has been to move all the buildings a small (though inconsistent) distance to the south. This sort of change often means that either you or a previous mapper have used aerial imagery that is not correctly aligned. The original mapping (before your changeset) seems to be correct relative to most of the surrounding buildings, and the public GPS traces don't clearly show that the original mapping was misaligned, so in that situation I think it is best to keep the realtive alignment of features correct, rather than trying to move a few buildings to match individual buildings to match aerial imagery that could well be misaligned.

Hello Daniel, and (a slightly belated) welcome to OpenStreetMap

I'm a little confused by this changeset. Firstly, this is because your changeset comment doesn't say anything useful, and certainly doesn't help me or anyone else to understand what you're doing. You also haven't given any indication of what sources you've used to take make the changes - there's a big difference between how much other contributors can trust a changeset if it's based upon someone visiting the location, compared to if it's based upon out-of-date or hard-to-read arial imagery. Another thing that would also help is splitting this up into two separate changesets, since the changes in London are unrelated to the changes in Hull.

Secondly, the changes themselves seem a bit odd. The change in London appears to be a realignment of the outline of a building under the station, but this new alignment doesn't seem to follow any building edge that I can deduce from other mapping and arial imagery. You also set the layer to 2 for some reason, even though the building seems to be under the tracks (which I think are level 1).

The changes in Hull also seem surprising. Has New North Bridge House been demolished? I can't see any evidence of this online. You also created new nodes for a building shared with an underground cable, which might have been accidental and is probably wrong - I wouldn't expect an underground cable to be running directly under an external wall.

Can you clarify what is going on with this changeset, and fix any errors you think you've made?
Thanks,
ACarlotti

This look wrong - are you sure your sources are up-to-date? The recent A14C2H works were supposed to close up all accesses like the one you just readded, with access provided from the A1307 (or other parallel routes) instead. In the unlikely event that there is still an entrance here, it certainly wouldn't provide access from the M11, because that would require a sudden left-turn across two lanes of 70mph traffic from the A14.

You seem to have mistakenly added a node to the residential area boundary. This probably shouldn't be sharing any nodes with the track you added.

This just duplicates the tagging that's already on the building outline, and is therefore redundant (c.f. "one feature, one OSM element"). I think you should revert this changeset.

Hello Chrisgf98,

Could you please add meaningful changeset comments to any future edits you make? These give a clear indication to other people (including you in the future) of what you intended to do, which makes it much easier to avoid misunderstandings, and correct any mistakes more quickly. There's more information about this on the wiki at osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
(To help people understand the changes youve already made, it might help to comment on your existing changesets with a brief description of what changes you have made, and what sources of data you have used. This latter point can particularly helpful if people know that a source you have used is inaccurate - e.g. if you have mistakenly used out-of-date aeriel imagery.)

I also notice that three of your changesets seem to include edits made in two or more locations that geographically a long way apart. This is generally a bad idea, because it is very hard to work out what areas are affected by changesets when they have a large bounding box. (Some tools only show a bounding box, and some other tools that try to show all the changes break if the bounding box is too big). In future, could you please try to ensure that changes in different locations are uploaded in separate changesets.

Thanks,
ACarlotti

I think the tagging is now better, but there still seem to be some inconsistencies. Firstly, you used the tag "oneway:bicycle=-1"; I think this is an error, since I can't find that tag listed on the wiki anywhere.
Secondly, I think there may still be issues with tagging for pedestrian (and equestrian?) access along the cycle routes, but I don't have the local knowledge to be sure. The easiest way to test this might be to wait a few days for route planner caches to be updated, and then test out planning routes in both directions on both sides of the junction (if relevant); however, this is not a guarantee of correctness, since I'm pretty sure at least on of the route planners is misinterpreting some access tags. Alternatively, jsut inspect the routes to see if the tags permit the necessary pedestrian/cycle access.
The issue with the southbound carriageway was that it previously had a tag of "access=no", which you've now removed.
Anyway, thanks for looking into this issue so quickly.

Could you please review and fix the access restrictions tagged on Princess Road (and possibly some of the surrounding roads). You're changes in this changeset and changeset/56900652 (there may be other relevant changesets I haven't noticed) appear to have incorrectly prohibited access both for cars continuing along Princess Parkway, and for cyclists along the cycle route to the east (in particular along the section shared with buses).
Additionally, could you confirm what source you used to establish the existence of a cycle prohibition?
If you need any help working out a valid set of tags, then I can probably help; however, I have no knowledge of the local area, so can't fix this myself without making guesses that might be wrong. From what I can work out, however, I think the intent of your changeset might be best represented by tagging the through stretch of Princess Parkway with "bicycle=no" (and an implicit "access=yes"), and tagging the bus route with "access=no" and "bus=yes", and "bicycle=yes" where it is also used by bikes. I suggest you check this against the advice in teh wiki though, because it's possible I might have misremembered a bit of this.

Should the individual ways now be tagged as "railway=construction" and "construction=rail"? This would then cause them to appear on the main rendering on the website (similar to how the line from Bletchley towards Bicester is currently shown).