Fixed self intersection on Way: 500209862

Yes once this year and once in 2015 are the commented changesets.

Dozens is likely an understatement. Your attention was probably only drawn to the ones I commented on (even though the comments seemed to provoke no response). The dozens of self intersecting outlines on areas (buildings, water, woods) were corrected with no comments being made on your changesets. I soon realised that you were going to continue with no change to your mapping methods, so the easiest way to rectify anomalies was just to edit them and say no more.

But this is all in the past and it's likely better for everyone (and OSM) if we all move forward from here to make a better map.
Regards Bernard

Hello, same problem here as with Manor Road. I've removed the duplicate and placed your new oneway tag on the existing section of Vicarage Road after appropriately splitting it.
Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I looked at your alterations to Manor Road and see that you inadvertently added two more highways atop the existing ways. The best way to achieve amendments like this is to edit the existing way, this also allows the history of change to be kept intact.
Triplication of ways seriously effects routeing programs that use OSM data.

Therefore I have removed the two extra ways, transferring your oneway tag to the original way. I hope you can understand the reasons for doing this.
Regards Bernard

I've pointed out this problem (through changeset comments) to mapper Rowland many times and corrected dozens of these instances. Despite this there has been no response from Rowland and data continues to be added incorrectly.
Rowland also maps land/building areas on top of existing land/building areas.
I've sent a couple of Emails to Rowland via OSM messaging but not had any response.

Hello There, just wanted to point out that buildings with courtyards do not have to have self intersecting outlines. Regards

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I've amended your opening hours and address tagging to suit OSM best practice. The world will now be better informed of your business. Regards Bernard

Hello, just wanted to point out that I think this is the 2016 route not the 2017 route.
There are several problems with it anyway. It crosses over on itself three times. Crosses existing roads without joining about ten times. Crosses water five times with no indication as to the manner of crossing.
If I can help in any way please just ask, Regards.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I've adjusted the opening times tag to suit OSM practice (months not indicated are taken as closed), and removed osm.wiki/Tag:house_number=.
Regards Bernard

Hello, no offense intended, some folk don't take kindly to being offered advice.

Right, I take it that the steps are intended to join the old railway. So that you have a route from the road along the path, then the steps and onto and along the railway. SatNav routing can then follow this route.
Problem, if you look at the area with the iD editor and zoom right in to the junction of steps and railway you'll see that actually the steps pass right over the railway line without joining to it.
Solution, left click on the last node of the steps, while holding down the left mouse button move the node onto the railway. Double left click to join the steps node to the railway. Test by holding down the left mouse button while the cursor is on the node and you should be able to drag about both rail and steps (joined node).

I don't use iD (JOSM is much easier) but have tested the above in iD as I typed it out. Any problems just ask.

Regards Bernard

Hi, yes I can see that but you have drawn two roads/highways, one on top of the other. Between the road junction at Ham and your mapped permissive bridleway which goes eastwards. The manner to map this is to consolidate all relevant tags on just one highway.
To have two highways one on top of the other at the same layer/level is incorrect.

I see you've joined the new way to Ham Road, thanks. The short road/highway going into the property west of the duplicated way is not joined to either of the duplicated ways.
Regards Bernard

Hello, this way (the steps) does not join to the old railway path.

Hello there, I'd just like to point out that for the way south from Ham you have mapped two ways (a highway=bridleway and a highway=unclassified). You've also tagged the access as (in parts) private, yes, permissive.
Your new way does not join with Ham Road, and the highway=road close to Ham Road, (which should be highway=service), does not join up to anything.
Regards Bernard

No need for website tag to be duplicated. Duplicate has been removed, regards.

Hello there, it's not usual to tag buildings as landuse=residential better to use building=residential on the building and landuse=? on the area.
Anyway the buildings you have retagged look like they are the old school buildings not the new houses. so the whole area needs to be redrawn.
Regards Bernard

Hi, the drinking water is already mapped so I've removed this duplicate. Regards.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
St Pancras International Station is already mapped, the POI just a few yards away from your POI. So I have removed this duplicate.
Regards Bernard

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
The new line you have added to the live worldwide OSM database in Primrose Grove has no tags to describe what it is. It is therefore of no value to OSM.
Further it in part duplicates the line of an existing way (a footpath). Also one branch of your way ends without joining to another way, making it (if it is a footpath) a cul-de-sac.
I await your comment.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Revert changeset to regain the original history (history was lost when houses redrawn, best to adjust whats already mapped thus keeping the history intact), remove the duplicate building, redraw the buildings, properly tag addresses to conform, change ele to conform.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I see your original POI has been removed from London.
You are now on the correct continent and near the right city, but the POI is still incorrectly placed for that address.
If you need any help please just ask, I could fix it if you wish?
One other thing, why does your website contact link to a law office? Looks a bit peculiar.
Regards Bernard.