Hi, I've unjoined the grass areas from highway center lines.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your website says this is a facility for online book purchase, not a shop open to the public. Thus it is better described/tagged as office=online_shop. I've made the amendment.

I've also removed the tag shop=books from the building as this is not correct. The building is not a book shop.

Regards Bernard

Hi, Regarding the Way: 1305827977 tagged landcover=trees and natural=tree_row. The landcover isn't rendered so is of no value. The tag natural=tree_row, this tag should refer to a linear feature not an area. This is why the area is rendered as a tree row enclosing an area. The two tags don't coexist.

Regards Bernard.

Hello there, As you can see here:- changeset/154871584#map=18/52.32865/-3.87478&layers=N the tag landcover=? isn't rendered, so no one looking at the OSM map will see it. But the tags natural=wood, natural=forest, natural=tree_row are rendered. The landcover tag was proposed for use (and to be open has been used often), but it was as far as I know never approved or accepted by vote.

Way: 1305836366 you've tagged as landcover=trees, natural=wood. The landcover tag is unnecessary as the natural=wood tag renders the area on it's own.

Way: 1305836370 looks more like a hedge with 3 trees, unrendered because of the tags. A better, rendered, tagging would comprise of a linear hedge (barrier=hedge) and 3 nodes tagged natural=tree.

Regards Bernard

Hi, It the gardens are for the dwellings and not open to the public, they ought to be tagged access=private.

Regards

A second duplicated section removed.

Duplicated highway removed, public footpath aligned and tagged.

Hi, There seems to be quite a few problems here with the interconnectivity of differing levels among other things. Please see here:- https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=0.28474&lat=50.76930&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Regards Bernard.

Hi spencerledger, There was no response from the mapper. With your say that this is incorrect, I've reverted the changeset.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Review of this changeset, firstly there are many warnings of problems as can be seen above. Some warnings are critical and need to be corrected, others are things that the mapper should look at and correct/amend to suit OSM practice.

Secondly it is an extremely large changeset, 171 features added or amended. This number of edits in a single changeset makes it very difficult for yourself or anyone to check. There are 10 warnings of crossing highways these are critical as they adversely effect routing. It will be difficult to find the crossing highways in a large changeset. It's best to limit a changeset to about 10 items.

There are problems, the first item, way/1305227907 is incorrectly tagged. it's tagged natural=tree_row and waterway=ditch. But it is on top of way/1305227972 tagged as natural=tree_row. The tree row tag should be removed from the ditch. Also it's not likely that the tree row will be in the ditch.

No more time at the moment.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Reviews if done are usually by folk who happen on the edits or by folk like me who look at edits from new contributors in an area they are interested. I can look at your edits and comment if needed.

Regards Bernard

Hi, Regarding the steps Way: 1305097823. They need to be sectioned up and an appropiate layer tag added to show which step section is above the other. As mapped now all the steps are implied (in the absence of a layer tag) to be at layer=0, ground level.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Thanks for trying but you didn't change it you deleted it. No problem though, I've reinstated the area and tagged it landuse=residential.

Regards Bernard.

Duplicated sections of highways removed.

Duplicated paths removed.

Duplicate paths removed.

Duplicated paths removed.

Hi, You somehow added duplicated footpaths. I've removed the duplications and tweaked the path line to the definitive line as shown on the Highway Authority website. I added the appropriate tags for a PRoW. The crossfield section of path is removed.

The section joining to the roundabout is part of a cycleway route.

I forgot to say OSM only uses formal verifiable names, thus I've removed the name.