Hi, you placed a footpath on top of a road. I've removed the duplicate highway, please check before uploading.

Regards Bernard.

You duplicated a footway, I've removed the duplication.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, The buildings are not really all strangely shaped.

If you zoom in you can map them much more accurately. You can also easily square up a building with the iD editor then they will look much neater and more professional. Fewer objects in a changeset will allow for better control of your mapping.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You've got several problems with the mapping of buildings in this changeset as noted above. The mapping is also not very neat, to say the least. The imagery is very good so if you zoom in the buildings can be very accurately drawn. It also looks like you haven't much idea about how to discern individual houses in a terrace.

Could you please correct the problems or revert changes?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The tag lane_markings=no is not necessary in OSM as in the absence of positive lane tagging (number of lanes and/or lanes forward and/or lanes backward) it is implied that there are no lanes marked. The tag lane_markings=no is not recognized and can't be really be rendered anyway. If you need to indicate lane_markings=no it can be done in a description or note tag but it's not necessary.

Regards Bernard.

Hi. "Public Footpath" is usually a description of a highway, not a name. In this case, I think the way is a public footpath so the appropriate tag is designation=public_footpath. I've amended the way to suit.

I also removed a duplicated section of highway, a footpath on top of a service highway.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that a layer tag is needed on tunnels and bridges. This is to show the relation to other features, whether its above or below. A bridge is usually layer=1 to show it's above the water, a culvert/tunnel is usually layer=-1 to show it's below a highway or building.

I've corrected a few bridges and culverts around here.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Your buildings Look a loy better/neater when properly squared up. This is easily done by right-clicking the building and then click the square icon.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Are you sure this path is drawn in the correct place? The OS map and the county definitive map show it more to the west.

You've also placed it and the bridge on top of the outline of the woods ond other outlines, I would have thought it's either in or out of the woods. The formal name is unlikely to be Footpath.

Regards Bernard.

By the way it is not allowed to use data directly from Ordnance Survey maps as they are protected by copyright. You can use the OS map to walk the path then draw the path from your experience. There are also other maps/data that OSM is allowed to use.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

"Footpath" isn't the formal name for this highway rather footpath is a highway description or status. I've removed the name and added more tags to the way. I've joined the path to the track at north.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Could you please say on what authority you determine the parish church grounds not to be accessible to the public? I assume by your removal of the churchyard footpath that you determine the grounds not accessible to parishioners as well, and can you say under what authority or declaration you assume this. You've even removed the path to the sports field.

Even if the grounds are "private property and not for public access" that is no reason to remove them from the OSM database. In fact, almost all land in the UK is owned and therefore private, even public footpaths. With your present reasoning, nothing should appear on OSM.

I've therefore reinstated the paths.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, can you describe the route of the track indicating the cross overs, please? Maybe even a picture or drawing? I can then try to draw it properly. At the moment it is self-intersecting.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You somehow mapped lots of highways that duplicated the existing highways. I think I've removed all the duplicates.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, you've got Way: The Caterpillar (925898792) crossing over itself and one join in the track. Rides like this should be a single line which is then sectioned up and tagged with relevant layer values. Have a look at similar features to see how it's done.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You did actually request a review.

I was trying to point out that the data was presented incorrectly (not to OSM practice), and could have been improved with better tagging. Thus served no purpose to OSM.

Yes, I knew the website was active, but the web address was presented incorrectly. The correctly presented address https://harkforward.co.uk/ gives vital extra data to show it links to a secure site. The https stands for Hypertext Transfer Protocol over Secure Socket Layer.

I've now amended the POI data adding the address and correct website.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, no response so I've reverted all 5 changesets that contain data not to OSM practice, this in my 102170973.

If you need help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, for Way: 857506902 probably a better tag to suit the purpose is surface=grass which is rendered, landcover=grass is not rendered.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, you seem to be making a lot of duplicate nodes. About 10 around Summerstown, I think I've removed them all.

Regards Bernard.

Added layer=1 to the bridges.