Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You made lots of duplications of features in this changeset, I think I've removed all of them. There were many duplicated highways that disrupted routing.

Please take heed of warnings when uploading. Also if a feature needs amending or correcting please amend/correct the existing feature, thus all history is kept.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Please check your mapping before uploading, I've just removed 19 duplicated highways from this area that you added. Duplicated highways seriously disrupt routing.

To make checking easier it's better to limit the number of edits in a changeset to about 20. It's would be very difficult for you or anyone else to check this changeset with nearly 1000 edits in it.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Please be careful and check for problems before you upload. I've just removed several sections of duplicated highways from your mapping.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I forgot to mention the tag craft=carpet_layer when other tags refer to a digital design & marketing agency.

Hi, You've got Deep Footprints Online Marketing Ltd (1222243458, v1) mapped as a self-intersecting line tagged as building=retail. Should this be a node?

Also it's tagged as addr:housenumber=11c, but it is within an existing building tagged addr:housenumber=9, is it in the correct place?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Please be aware that you have several unconnected path ends in this area. There are also several lines that are just tagged surface=ground, are these paths? Could you please go over your mapping and correct these anomalies?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I tried to explain before that a running track is a leisure feature and a footpath is a highway. Leisure features are not routable, highways are. As far as I'm aware no routing software will route through a leisure feature.

Paths at Sweet Briar Marsh do all route correctly, please see here for an example: osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=52.64184%2C1.24899%3B52.64068%2C1.25867#map=16/52.6429/1.2575&layers=N

Same with the Wensun Park paths:- osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=52.64007%2C1.28634%3B52.64157%2C1.28454#map=18/52.64128/1.28594&layers=N

The two routing examples above say to me that Plotaroute is not the best option for routing. Although Plotaroute says they update their data from OSM on a drip-feed basis, the drip must be very slow though.

Sorry I can't explain better, Regards Bernard.

Hi, The running track is (correctly) tagged as a leisure feature, it is not (and shouldn't be) tagged as a highway. Plotaroute like most other routing software will only route on highways. I tried Plotaroute on other running tracks and it's just the same outcome.

As I said before there is a route from any highway to the end of the footway where it joins the track on foot or cycle. Please see here:- osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=52.63744%2C1.25419%3B52.63629%2C1.25795

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Your additions of ways tagged leisure=track, sport=running, surface=paved, would not have made the running track routable. Only highways, (other than highway=raceway), are routable. This track isn't a highway so it would not be expected to be routable. As it is now there is a route from any highway to the end of the footway where it joins the track on foot cycle.

A running track should not be tagged as a highway.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, The running track is already mapped and described as an area multipolygon relation. Please see here:- relation/1634345
Thus your two sections of track are not needed so I've removed them.

Don't worry about it there's lots to learn. Regards Bernard.

Hi, No your contributions are not moderated as such but they are open for anyone to comment on. As a personal thing, I look at the first few edits of all new mappers in eastern England and comment when necessary.

Your edits up to the one "straightened path" do all show up occasionally you might have to clear your browser cache or reload an OSM page to force a re-render of the map.

Thanks for adding the bridge.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Could you please map how the new path crosses the water at the NW end?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Lots of highways corrected.

Hi, many highway tags corrected.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

From the Bing Imagery and other popular imagery, it looks like there is a path along that embankment. Did you mean to say there is no Public Right of Way here? If so that's a different matter. Please be aware that paths other than PRoW's can be mapped to OSM. Indeed I think that is the case here. So unless you know that no path exists here, in any manner, then the path should be reinstated.

Regards Bernard.

Hello ifkmaps, The track is not any form of Public Right of Way, (horse or foot), so I would assume there is no legal public access for walkers. I think the tag horse=yes is incorrect on a private track. If horses are allowed on a private track the tag would be horse=private.

Regards Bernard.

All the others are removed so I've now removed this one. Thanks for the nudge.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Please don't place a footpath on top of a road, it's a highway duplication that disrupts routing. It's OSM practice in cases like this to section off the existing highway that needs amending. I've now done this for your new path, tagging the service road with designation=public_footpath
foot=designated

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've amended the building shape and the tags to OSM practicw. 48a Westoning Road is not the name.

Regards Bernard

Duplicated highways and fiction removed.