Hi, I've removed the fictional motorway.

Hi, Glad to help, there's a lot for you to learn.

It's OK to tag the paths as access=private, but only if the public are denied access.

For the paths through buildings, section off the path and tag as foot=yes
highway=footway
tunnel=building_passage, I've done two so you can see the method.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, 1-13 Albert Close is a description rather than a formal name. I've amended the tags, the description is still within the tags.

I've tweaked some areas and reinstated the footpaths. Are there some passageways through buildings here?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Private garages would be the description of the building rather than the formal name. I've amended it to a description tag.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, foot=yes changed to foot=no

Hi, That's reasonable, the longer path is tagged as foot=yes is that correct, if so then are both paths foot=yes? If not then the foot=yes should be changed to foot=no. Anyway, I've tagged both paths as access=private which in OSM means no public access of any kind. Please let me know if foot access is allowed on either path.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've removed the names from the highway nodes as I think they are fiction. All land is in some sort of ownership so it's all potentially private.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Pendower Road has somehow been duplicated here with the several route relations mismatched across the highway sections. Could you have a look please?

Regards Bernard.

Hello spiregrain, Please be aware that the two sections of the A390 here have somehow been duplicated, hence four sections of way below. The several route relations are split between the different sections. It would be difficult for me to sort out the relations when removing sections of duplicated highway so I wonder if you could please look to rectifying this problem. If not I'll have a go.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You somehow dragged several features out of alignment as indicated by the warnings above. Please be very careful and check what you may have inadvertently moved before uploading. If you are unsure don't upload but close without uploading and start mapping again.

I've corrected all the problems.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Just a few questions. Has Travelosophers taken over Cyplon? if so Cyplon should be removed. Is Travelosophers an online-only business? It seems from the website that it's only online, and that the office is not actually open for face to face business.

Regards Bernard.

Hi Eman,
Looks all good now exactly what I thought from imagery. I'm not local though so I was reluctant to map itas such.

Regards & Thanks Bernard.

Hi, Regarding Way: Recreational Community Hall (916006919), I've reinstated the correct building level tag and corrected the name to English, (the building is in the UK so English is the area language).

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You made a few mistakes here which I've rectified, hedges unjoined, duplication of road sections, and making Button Lane a bridge and also adding a level crossing where there is none.

Please make sure what you upload to OSM is ground truth, other folk may well rely on correct mapping.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please don't test on a live worldwide database. I've reversed your mapping as it doesn't make sense.

Regards Bernard

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

A building on the ground surface would, (by OSM), be designated as layer=0. Layer=0 is the case for most buildings, thus for OSM, in the absence of a layer tag, layer=0 is implied. Thus no layer tag is needed here.

It's OSM practice when something like the bank ceases to trade the relevant tags are appended with disused. Then other folk know exactly what has happened and other mappers won't add the details back. I've added the tags disused:amenity=bank
disused:name=Barclays Bank.

Regards Bernard.

The wood area was correct, you mapped around a tree shadow.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I see you've removed a beach area. Has the beach disappeared now, have you checked it at all states of the tide? Because at high tide it would not be visible but still be there. Please note that the Bing imagery may have been taken when the tide covered the beach.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, you deleted the steps down to the subway. I've reinstated them. Please be careful not to inadvertently remove features.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Yes you have certainly removed the highway that zig zagged and at north duplicated anotherhighway. I take it then that there was not two highways or a dual carriageway.

The concern now is the bridge you've also removed. The imagery seems to show a bridge over Wadi Jawf. The highway does cross the wadi, do you know if there is a ford or a bridge? OSM should show how the road crosses the wadi,

Regards Bernard.