Hi, I'm not sure what happened but if in doubt don't try to upload changes a second time just in case there's a lag still waining on your first upload. With JOSM you can save a doubtful changeset locally on your PC. Then wait a while to see if any changes got uploaded to OSM. You can then load the save back into JOSM to upload any changes that were missed.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

There's no need for two clinic tags on the health centre. Same for the pharmacy.

The foot access to George Street is a designated right it being a PRoW. Motor vehicle use is not a designated right, I think there may actually be restrictions to vehicle use.

The Hadleigh High School name is on the school relation (Relation: Hadleigh High School (7766756)) as per OSM practice, so no need for it to be tagged three extra times.

I've made the few modifications mentioned above. Otherwise good mapping, Mant Thanks on behalf of OSM.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've reinstated the bridge and amended the path layout.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Sorry to have to say your changes added a bridge linking the path by the rail line to the Skipton Road bridge over the rail line. Your change also duplicated part of the rail bridge. Also, the lower path does look like a shared cycleway as it was originally tagged. For these reasons, I've reverted your changes.

If you need help with anything please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Please check for duplications before uploading. I've just removed 8 sections of duplicated highway that you added/amended.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, you joined highways to a mapped underground cable in several places. I've removed these joins.

Regards Bernard.

Removed duplicated section of service Way: 864196413 that extended along Cramfit Road.

Regards Bernard.

I've removed 3 duplicated section of highway.

Hi, Cycleway Way: 92447558 and footpath Way: 92447543 look like they are a single highway (a segregated but combined footway/cycleway) rather than two separated highways as you've mapped. Please see here:- segregated=*

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I wondered what untagged Way: 893143784 is.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've amended the address and hours to suit OSM practice, also added the website.

Regards Bernard.

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.