I've removed the highway section you placed on top of an existing highway as it's duplication.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Can you say why you placed The Walkway, a service highway, on top of Grosvenor Road making a duplicate highway section?

You've done similar duplications recently. I've now removed several sections of highway atop of highway.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've reverted this changeset because it deleted the fountain.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Please respond to the comments on your first changeset changeset/117989468

There are problems with your mapping that you're likely not aware of, so could you please pause editing till the situation is resolved.

In case you don't see this comment I've asked the OSM Data working group to contact you regarding the situation.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've placed the 11km path Way: 1035355669 entirely on top of existing highways. This is duplication and it disrupts routing. Thus I've removed it.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've drawn the road over buildings and another highway, it's doubtful if this is a boardwalk. Thus I've removed SV ROAD.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed the duplicate section of Way: 195/4/10 (1036027892) and connected it to the A4260 rather than the boundary line that you joined it onto. I also amended the path descriptions and names, those numbers are the County Code not a name.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed the duplicated highway.

Regards Bernard.

Footpath removed as it was mapped on top of the existing highways and on the canal.

Hi, You are placing highway footpath on top of existing highways making duplication that disrupts routing. I've removed this duplication but I think there are more.

Please don't make a highway on top of another highway. If a way needs correcting please make the correction to the existing way as per OSM practice.

Regards Bernard.

Hi,
My edit of this way was to remove a duplicated section of the path, I also removed a duplicated highway=construction section of highway to the north.

The fee tag was added by the original mapper lamoukate in Changeset: 105233209.

I would agree with removing the fee tag, it doesn't look correct.

Regards Bernard.

Hi please consider the comment to your previous changeset changeset/117865871#map=16/51.7856/-1.5027

You're continuing to add fictional names and duplicated highways.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Please take a look here at a lot of duplicated sections of highway that you've mapped:- https://tinyurl.com/2hv277by

Could you please remedy these duplications? Also remove the fiction names from the driveways. The footpaths don't usually have individual formal names so unless there are verifiable formal footpath names ought also be removed.

The OSM tag leisure=garden refers to all types of gardens, are these ones publicly accessible? If not they should be tagged access=private.

There are several instances where you've tagged a house address with the number in the addr:housename= tag and the name=tag, an example is Way: 88 (1031032473) the house number should only be in the addr:housenumber= tag.

I hope you can remedy these problems, if you need help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi Billy, Thanks for responding. It's not a mess the learning curve went a bit astray!

I look at fixing routing problems, (among other things), and noticed the duplication problems reported here:- https://tinyurl.com/2ekrjuxf I didn't pick this up for any particular reason I just like to help out.

Duplicated highways can mess up routing and logically there can only be one highway on the ground on any one line. To overcome the different names of routes that are on the same section of highway relations are used. Thus only one section of highway is mapped but that section can be included in several relations. Each relation holds the route name and all individual sections of highway making up that route. Various other things can be added to the relation as described here:- https://tinyurl.com/mz8h6jzj (One thing folk often forget is that a hiking route can be over different types of highway, path, track, road, etc, a route relation can hold various types of highway.)

I hope this makes sense. Looking again at the park paths I wonder if they are routes as they don't make circles? Are they on a website?

Regards Bernard

Hi, You've duplicated a lot of sections of paths in this park. One section has three paths on top of each other. It would be better to create route relations for the different named routes. Then the route relation would hold the name rather than the path sections. No highway should be duplicated.

Need any help please just ask. Regards Bernard.

The gardens should be tagged as gardens, that is what they are, that is what you have said. It is OSM practice to map the overall area as residential.

Hi, I just wanted to point out that within landuse=residential (Way: 403095226) you have mapped lots more small areas tagged as landuse=residential. I've amended the small areas to access=private
leisure=garden as this seems a better description of the areas.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, First while fresh in my mind, as of 7th Dec 2021 (last cycle-travel data update), this track was described by them as "rough unpaved trail Docking's Lane", depending on your point of view that's correct. So folk using the track would now its probable condition in certain conditions. You can add notes to sections of a route in cycle-travel but I don't know if the note is visible/accessible to other users. (I've now added surface=grass as cycle-travel takes surface into consideration.)

A Byway Open to All Traffic is legally what it says, a highway open to all forms of traffic no matter the condition of the highway. The track can be seen in the Bing, Maxar, Esri, and Mapbox imagery. If a

Whats can legally be expected of a public RoW is described under the section "Maintaining and protecting public rights of way" here:- https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-local-authority-responsibilities#maintaining-and-protecting-public-rights-of-way Though what you find on the ground is often a very different matter. Your reporting to the council is commendable, I wish you luck!

Discouraging a way is subjective and not really something that can be accurately described in OSM. This way will likely be very different in the summer. Anyone might easily use it one day but not the next.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap and well done for your first edit of the database.

I'd like to point you to some info intended to guide OSM editing:- smoothness=* this page implies the test for smoothness=impassable is that no 4WD vehicle can proceed. Clearly not the case here as the track shows evidence of vehicular use in the imagery. The tag tracktype=grade5 describes to surface and thus the probable surface smoothness as detailed here:- tracktype=* I would have thought bikes designed for off-road use (which this is), would have no problems. Thus I've removed that tag.

I've reinstated the bicycle tag as bicycle=designated, cycling is a legally designated form of access on this track. It's a byway open to all traffic, BOAT.

Please don't be deterred from editing, there's just a lot to it.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed your duplicated highways.

Regards Bernard.