Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

If these ways are now in open use you need to remove the construction=residential tags as well.

Regards Bernard.

On second thoughts there is a lot of damage so I've reverted anyway. This done in changeset #97177632 Everything is back as it was before you started editing. If you wish to edit the database please be careful not to inadvertently delete genuine features,

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I wonder if you are aware that you've deleted 33 features from the OSM database?

I think the only way to reinstate these ways is to revert this changeset. Would you like me to do this?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You duplicated a couple of ways, no problem though I've amended the items.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You joined the path onto the residential area outline. I've moved it to join onto London Road, thus showing the footpath link routing from one highway to another. I take it this is what you intended, if not let me know and I'll change it with apology.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that residential area Way: 892436777 has been inadvertently squared off.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've reinstated several deleted footpaths while trying to keep the additions you made.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

It's OSM practice to only map verifiable ground truth.

Your changeset comment seems to indicate that you are not absolutely sure of the speed limit here so please check before adding a speed limit tag.

The maxspeed:advisory=* tag is used to map a posted advisory speed limit which is not legally binding. Again you seem to indicate this maxspeed:advisory is your advice, not that which is signed on the road.

The Bing imagery indicates that there are no lanes marked in either direction on this road. Indeed for the most part there isn't even a central white line dividing the carriageway. Lane tagging gets a bit complicated but if there is only one lane the road can't be two way.

Regards Bernard.

Hi,

I did test revert your first changeset to see what the forest area looked like originally. It was yourself that inadvertently squared the area off.

I see that rather than reverting the inadvertent changes you've tweaked the area again. May I respectfully point out that the forest area does not extend across the railway, (the railway area is not forested). Further please see that you've now duplicated the forest area north of the railway. I've not changed anything so that you can see what I mean.

Regards Bernard.

Hi,

I just wanted to let you know the forest area Way: 76448980 seems to have been inadvertently squared off. If you need help reverting it please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi George,

Thanks for responding. Surely you can see the results of a test on StreetComplete without uploading it. You certainly can with other editors. You might want to try JOSM, with which you can open a layer/area of OSM data, make your additions and see the outcome. You can save you test to your PC for later viewing or further testing all without uploading.

You've not caused any issues so far but it's only serious issues that are flagged as warnings. OSM has in the past had major problems with school and even university online projects where fiction has been inadvertently uploaded. So I would ask if your edits/project can be conducted offline.

If I can help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

It looks like the data you added you then deleted or removed in some way. Do you need any help, please just ask?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, subjective, maybe yes, but only to the extent that you as an individual want to map. Features should be added to reflect ground truth, there is a difference between footpaths and sidewalks.

Paths that run along the side of a road separated by a kerb can be tagged with road tagging but only as sidewalks, (because that is what they are walkways to the immediate side of a road = sidewalks). Those footpaths that I mentioned are as I said separated from the roadway by a grassed area, they are not sidewalks.

Anyway it's not really a good thing to delete genuine properly mapped features merely because you think they ought not be in the database. Please be aware also that OSM is not a map, it is a database from which maps are compiled. OSM therefore can never be seen as "overly cluttered", that is your perception when everything is rendered. If you wish your map not to show/render particular features you are free to compile it omitting those features. The OSM frontpage map, depending on zoom level, shows all features that are renderable from via its stylesheet. Click on the layers to the right of OSM frontpage to see just a few different styles of rendering.

Anyway what can we do to reinstate these footpaths? I'm willing to revert the changes for you.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I just wondered about the two sections of Iron Way. Do they really exist as mapped and tagged? If so then they should be joined not left unjoined isolated sections of highway. Also does the cycleway extend to Mayfield Road? If you need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I just wondered about this bollard, seems strange to have a bollard in the middle os a residential road.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, Could you please say why you have deleted all these footpaths? They clearly exist on viewing imagery as paths separate to roadways, (Portland Drive area).

Regards Bernard.

Hi, looks like there's something wrong here.

You have the name and number as 23, surly 23 is not a name. Also, you put the singular address on the whole building, the building consists of several shops and many apartments. Then there an address interpolation across this building with completely different details, (number and street).

Could look at and correct these anomalies.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've amended quite a few tags to align with OSM practice and better reflect features mapped. Please take a little time to select logical ground truth tags which are not necessarily those offered by the iD editor. The iD editor you're using also has a facility to square up buildings, (highlight/select a building, right-click it, click the square icon from the drop down menu).

Regards Bernard.

Hi, yes I reckoned the road name to be correct, it was the gate tagged name=Gates that I reckoned wrong. I removed the tag name=Gates from the gate barrier and added access=private
barrier=gate to it. I reckoned the gate inferred that access was private. If I'm wrong please remove or amend the access=private tag, (or let me know the allowed access and I'll change it).

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You duplicated the east-west section of Western Ave by placing two highways atop of each other. Western Ave is not a PRoW so it ought not be tagged as such. (Please map the correct PRoW.) I've removed the duplication and incorrect tags.

Regards Bernard.