Hi, thanks for responding, I could see something was somehow going wrong and thought it best to let you know rather than just deleting the duplicates.

Yes, the new ways should be removed. I think some tags on your new (duplication), highways differ slightly from the existing highway tags. So, as you remove your duplicates, check to see if the existing tags need amending.

Need any help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've had a look at all your changesets from the last year, with one exception they look OK. The exception is your last changeset: changeset/140123569
The cycleway was not joined to the overall network of highways. Thus it would be ignored as far as routing is concerned, (you could not get onto it from the rest of the highway network, nor off once on it). So I've joined the cycleway to the road at each end where it looks like the cycleway crosses the road.

Need any help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Please be aware that you have many warnings about your mapping as listed above.

It seems that you've been duplicating many existing highways. Please see here: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-4.24812&lat=55.86490&zoom=16&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas
The blue lines are the problems and seem to be due to your edits in several recent changesets.

Can you please make corrections or reversions to remedy this? Please don't just delete the highways you've duplicated; that will also delete the history associated with the ways. If a way needs correcting the existing way should be corrected, as per OSM best practice. Then your history is added to the existing history.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Just to let you know that you had dragged lots of areas out of alignment here. I think I've now reverted them all.

This is a good reason to limit the number of features edited in a changeset. With this large changeset it would be very difficult to inspect/check all editing before the upload. Small changes are much easier to check and don't really take more time when considering the time taken to later correct things.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

OSM practice is to, where possible amend or correct existing objects/features, rather than delete and add again. Thus the full history of the object is maintained. Deleting an object deletes its history.

I've reverted this deletion and moved the original building.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've joined up the three sections of footpath. Also joined the path to the road at the north end.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I don't think the footpath is missing, it's still on the County definitive map as a Public Footpath and signed from the road.
It is crossfield so it is liable to be periodically ploughed up as per legislation. It should be reinstated within 28 days, though this doesn't usually happen.

I've removed a duplicated section of highway.

Regards Bernard

Hi, You've also mapped a large area of woodland that is actually a few trees in back gardens. There are so many things wrong with the mapping here it would be difficult to list it all.

Please take some time to see how these features are mapped, perhaps by looking at other areas or seeking advice. I'm reluctant to start putting things right while you're adding stuff in this way.

Regards Bernard.

I now see that more of your cycleways are duplicating existing cycleways tagged as lanes on the carriageways.

Could you please correct these duplications as they could disrupt routing?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, The two cycleways you added, Way: 1205513310 and Way: 1205513325 are already mapped as cycleway:left=lane on both sections of Alderman Road. Your cycleways are duplicating the existing cycleways so I've removed them. They also duplicated sections of the roundabouts as well.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your new road duplicates the line of an existing highway thus disrupting routing. It's OSM practice to amend/correct the existing object, not draw over it. I've removed your duplicated highway.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, part of your new way, Way: 1205241348, duplicated an existing highway and also joined to the highway above the tunnel, The footway from Old Warren is situated on the existing track, it's also a PRoW not a permissive footway. I've made amendments to correct this.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Can you please explain why you've mapped areas of footway over gardens, hedges, and buildings?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, your new track duplicated an existing highway so I've removed it. I've transferred your tags to the existing highway. That section of Monkton Lane is a public highway and can be used on foot, cycle, and by horse, so to say it's impassable is subjective.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Thanks for responding, I haven't made any changes, (while awaiting your response). From what you say though, I think the changeset should be reverted which I've now done. If I can help further please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, These three footways are placed on top of and joined onto an existing highway. The existing highway is tagged as layer=-1, this would not make for correct routing. The existing highway is tagged as foot=yes. So I wonder if the footpath and existing service highway are a single-way? Thus the footpath should not be mapped as a separate object. In any case there is now a duplication of highways that should be resolved.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Just to let you know that a house name is not derived from the number and road name. Therefore names like 11 Larkin Close are incorrect and should be removed.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that you inadvertently duplicated some sections of highways here. This also resulted in the duplication of some route relation sections. Namely Way: Barton-upon-Humber Junction (682638461), Way: Barton-upon-Humber Junction (682638455) and Way: Ferriby Road (151043135). I think I've got it all corrected so no problem. You have to be extra careful when relations on highways are involved.

Regards Bernard.

Reverted to re-align many dragged highways

Hi, Land use should be mapped as areas, not nodes. Thus these nodes are meaningless. The nodes should be removed and the areas should be mapped.

Regards Bernard.

Regards Bernard.