Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Features mapped to OSM must be verifiable. Is there a disused red phone box here? Can you please post a recent photo? If the spice museum is genuine then there are more tags that can be added to better describe the feature.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Restricted byway would be the highway authority legal designation for that highway. Thus I've amended to suit. I also amended the service leading out to the B3095.

Regards Bernard.

Duplicated highway removed.

This is not a bridge, I've removed the incorrect tags.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed your Way: 956074564 as it is a very long way almost entirely duplicating existing ways.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Just wanted to point out that OSM practice is that the address:city is the postal city for the area so that's Norwich. Please see this link:- addr=*

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

That would be a retail business as the public can go there. So I've reinstated the tag and added shop=furniture.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Does the other information regarding the cafe need to be removed from the building addr:housenumber=15? If it is relevant to the new cafe building it could be transferred. Need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I tweaked these areas a bit but the main amendment was to add layer=1 to the platform to indicate its relation to the water. With no layer tag, like the water, it is implied the water is layer=0, the platform tagged as layer=1 is therefore rendered as above the layer=0 water.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Regarding footpath Way: 954089834, is there a bridleway as mapped? If not can the bridleway section be removed?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've placed your new bridleway Way: 955768236 mostly on top of service road Way: 472637519

The same for bridleway Way: 955768237 placed on top of existing mapped public bridleways.

Way: 955768236 is also placed on top of existing highways.

Theses duplications greatly disrupt routing. It might be best to revert this entire changeset and start again. Can you fix the problems or would you like me to?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I removed a couple of sections of footpath you placed on top of existing tracks, thus making duplication of highways. If a way or object needs amendment please do the amendment to the existing way or object. It's not good practice to place new ways on top of existing, nor to delete and redraw ways. Amending or correcting the existing ways keeps all of the editing history which is important to do.

Regards Bernard

Numbers amended

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I doubt if the flats are as you've drawn them, all side by side. I've amended to building to hold all four addresses.

Regards Bernard

Hi, Yes please ask questions, you can message me direct via my name link. Or you can ask questions in the forum, the link is under the help drop-down box above.

If you're thinking of mapping to OSM regularly or doing more complicated stuff please consider using the JOSM editor. JOSM is by far a superior editor than anything else. Need help with it again please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I see that Mill Hill Trail is the name of a hiking route. So I've removed that name from the various sections of highway making up the route. I then created a route relation from your data including the route name.

The trail can be seen here:- https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12860780&map=14!57.2676!-2.5287

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your new footpath from Long Road West to Harwich Road was at each end placed on top of existing highways, thus making for duplication.

I've made amendments by removing your duplication sections and amending/correcting those existing highways.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, This is a rather large changeset and contains a lot of ways. It's therefore rather difficult to any problems. However, there is some duplication of highways. Part of Way: 954436885 is placed on top of an existing way, the existing way should not be deleted but amended to suit your new data. The same problem occurs with your new Way: 79488016 and the same remedy should apply. Way: 759158215 crosses a stream with no bridge or ford.

Way: Turnpike Trail (698122161) is joined to lots of area outlines which is not particularly good practice. It's also joined onto a stream, Way: Rushmill Burn (256997455), is there a bridge or ford here? I think Turnpike Trail is the route name so it should not be used as the formal name for a track section of the route.

Your mapping is pretty good but with large changesets, it's very easy to miss problems. I've only looked at the first twenty ways and found the above concerns. Could you please make some corrections?

Thanks & Regards Bernard.

Hi, The reason I questioned it was because I couldn't see it on the county definitive map. It's also not on the Ramblers list of lost paths. But as long as you've walked it with no "let or hindrance" then that's OK. I would however add a note tag on it like 'note=I've walked this path many times', then other folk will know the reason you've mapped it.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Have you yourself actually walked this path? Because it seems as if you're saying you're not sure if folk are allowed through there. The path line as drawn passes over hedges a few times. Could you comment please?

Regards Bernard.