Hi, It is removed, you did remove it.
This page is your changeset, below you can see a list of nodes, node/8621207054, this was the streetlamp that you've now removed, (thanks). The other node/2917742035, which is struck out, means that it is not now in the database, it's deleted. Your browser might be showing an old cached tile, refresh the browser or reload the page.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Yes, a mistake here with the house and bridge. I've now mapped the bridge and house. The bridge, house and drain are named so I've added the names to OSM.

The node below is the street lamp you queried on the OSM help forum.

Hope this helps, need more help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap, just a few points to help your mapping.

I've removed the name= tags as this inadvertently contains the house numbers, not the house name. The numbers you already have in the addr:housenumber= tag.

The house numbered 15 extended across several houses. I've reduced its outline, removed the number (I can't determine the numbers.

In the iD editor if you use the Maxar imagery you'll find a later/better image of this area, (right side of editor, click 'background settings', select/click 'Maxar Premium Imagery'. You should see several buildings where you had drawn one.

Need any help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Does the line of hole 4 really start on the edge of a bunker?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, There is no need to draw the pond as a multipolygon. It is just a regular polygon and should be drawn as such. Having three sections of outline is meaningless and allows the scrub area that contains the pond to be rendered on top of the pond.

Multipolygons are relations, they are a method to draw complicated areas and ought to be studied before using them. Simple polygons should not be drawn as multipolygons please see here:-osm.wiki/Multipolygon_Examples

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've got a footpath going across a pond. Is this correct? Actually, the pond (from Maxar imagery), doesn't look like you've drawn it. You also have some footpath sections joined onto the pond edges which wouldn't be correct.

These are good additions to OSM but please take time to ensure your edits are correct.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, these ways/areas look a bit strange. The pond and ditch don't seem to match the really good imagery that's available. The footpath doubles back on itself.

Regards Bernard.

More duplications removed.

I've removed more of your duplications.

Hi, you placed long sections of footpath on top of other highways making disruptive duplications. I've removed the duplications. Please try not to repeat this.

Regards Bernard.

You duplicated a few sections of the highway, I've removed the duplications.

Regards Bernard.

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.