The reverted changeset was actually reopening one stretch of road as well, so you probably need to revert half of your revert, or revert the earlier changeset as well.

This changeset was based on outdated imagery and effectively reverts earlier imagery. I have reverted it in 151364738.

This changeset and 140825787 appear to be based on outdated imagery, and effectively revert part of Wookey's changes in 126944850, and whichever changeset removed the building when it was demolished (I haven't found a good way of tracking that one down).

Before changing something that you think is wrong on the basis of old information, particularly in the context of a well-mapped area like Cambridge, you should ask yourself whether it's more likely that someone's messed up the mapping of a building that's been around for decades and is still there, or more likely that the situation on the ground has changed since the imagery you're using was last updated. In this case, it was very easy to check the object history to find Wookey's changeset that updated the car park, which clearly states that the car park was extended and that the changeset is based upon local knowledge.

Reverted as part of 151364738.

Incorrect comment and source - should say "Improve alignment of new Pathfinder Link Road junction with Ring Road". Source: Maxar Premium Imagery, and site visit

The restriction exists because there isn't space for right-turning traffic to wait for oncoming traffic without blocking other vehicles. Buses don't usually make this turn either, but there is an exemption to allow Castle Street to be served during road closures in the city centre.

Did you intend to move the node on Hobson Avenue as part of this changeset?

You also broke 13 bus route relations. Please check for bus route relations in future and try to avoid breaking them. In particular, if you're changing road topology, then you need to check that they still follow the correct through junctions and use the correct side of dual carriageways.

I think I've repaired all these issues, though I think there are a few cycle lanes and shared paths near this junction that still need correcting. My fixes are in changeset changeset/94968200. I'd recommend also viewing the changes at https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=94968200 - this makes it easier to view some of the changes geometry and tags, but doesn't show changes to relations.

You also deleted (and failed to subsequently remap) a genuine turn restriction:
relation/2833654/history

You've added separate left and right turn lanes from Shelford Road (northbound) onto Addenbrookes Road. This would imply that the turning lanes are segregated from the ahead lane, which is definitely not the case. You also added a ridiculously large number of unecessary turn restrictions. I will be deleting all these incorrect additions.

I've also noticed that many of your changesets (including this one) are realigning features to match Bing imagery without taking into account any misalignment of the imagery. It is always necessary to check the alignment of imagery. It is usually more important for features to be aligned accurately relative to other nearby features, than to try to achieve sub-metre accuracy against some global reference (which is nearly impossible due distortions and misalignment inimagery, inaccuracies in GPS, and eventually things like continental drift).

In the context of this changeset, I can see that almost all of the houses near Shelford Road are accurately aligned in relation to each other (comparing to Bing imagery). You've clearly aligned your mapping to match Bing imagery. However, you have failed to take into account possible misalignments in the imagery, meaning that there is a systematic 4m error between the existing mapping of the houses and your new mapping of the road.

Please ensure that you understand all the issues that can arise when using imagery to trace features in OSM. This wiki page is a good starting point.
osm.wiki/Using_Imagery

Also, I'll note that Google do not, to my knowledge, allow any of their imagery or data to be used. I added 2 North End based only upon your description and Bing imagery. Bing only allow their imagery to be used, not their other map data.

Firstly, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes, as long as you try to learn from them in the future. Everyone makes mistakes, especially when they're new.

I've made changes based upon your comment in changeset/94666464 (you can view the differences clearly in https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=94666464).

Feel free to add other things (e.g. more addresses, including perhaps addr:city and addr:postcode tags), or attempt to fix anything else. I think I'm unlikely to make any more changes here myself, but I can probably check some more of your changes if you'd like. Try not to be too afraid of making mistakes - as long as you try to avoid them, then you can learn from any you do make.

Can you try to adjust these yourself?
Moving the bus stops is easy - just make sure you don't accidentally glue them to the road or a landuse boundary again. Note that there are bus stops mapped on both sides of the road, reflecting that buses stop there when travelling in both directions. I think you've only been noticing one at a time so far.
The easiest way to adjust the entrance in this case is probably to delete it and create a new one in a more accurate location (although it is technically possible to reuse the existing way while changing all of its (2) nodes). You could also add a node to the middle of this tagged "barrier=gate" or something similar (c.f. barrier=gate ).

If you live in the area, then you might also know what names the roads on the three sides of the triangle should, based upon any nearby signs as well as which route is the through route at each junction.

I've had another look at this, and judging by the Esri Imagery (and also Bing imagery, though it's clear there), I think the crossing is further east than where it was mapped. I'm also not sure why (or how) you edited the crossing anyway - you seem to have deleted and recreated one node, and copied the tags to a different node.

I think I've fixed/improved this in changeset/94610418.

I'll start by noting that Google maps is not a permitted source for OpenStreetMap mapping, so I can't use their imagery to help with edits.

However, I had another look at the Bing imagery and concluded that I could just make out the route of a full perimeter road on that imagery, so I could use that to add it to the map. I realised as a result that the triangular junction on High Street was also misaligned, so I've improved that. What isn't clear from the mapping is the exact location of the entrance from High Street, so I might have put that in the wrong place.

I also tagged it as access=private, since it looks like that's probably the case.

These changes are in changeset/94595269 - do they look correct to you?

I don't see why having a bus stop named after a nearby road should cause confusion (especially if Manor Road has an access from High Street). "Bus Stop" is not part of the bus stops name, so I've removed it again. I also note that you only changed the name on one side of the road anyway.

In this changeset you also joined the bus stops onto the landuse boundaries. These shouldn't be joined, so I've detached them again (while leaving them in the same location).

Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Looking at Bing imagery, there appears to be an internal access road running around the perimeter of the site, possibly with an additional access close to the bus stop on High Street.
Do you know if the Manor Road name applies to this entire road (rather than just the access to the central car park)?
Do you know the layout well enough to be able to add it to the map (the connectivity isn't quite clear on Bing due to overhanging trees)?

Thanks!

One way of tagging it is to tag the bit under the building with tunnel=yes and layer=-1
An alternative might be to split part of the building and add bridge and layer tags to it, but I think the first solution is better.

I think you've incorrectly set most of Prince's Street as oneway.
Also, I think it is better to map this junction with all five ways meeting at a point, rather than having the 'contraflow' way meeting Prince's Street at a different node. I think this makes it easier to understand the junction layout, and is consistent with the layout on the ground (where I don't think the roads meet at two distinct point).

BCNorwich: You actually only removed one of the incorrect names. I've removed the other one now myself.