Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

There's a small problem, OSM expects natural=wetland and water=pond to be areas rather than a node. Note wetland=pond would not be used for a pond. Please see natural=water OSM would not expect to see inland water described as tidal, intermittent maybe.

I can only see one small pond on aerial imagery, (which I've added), are these ponds recently created? Could you perhaps approximately draw them? Otherwise, although the POI causes no problem (except being flagged as incorrect) it serves no function except to display the name.

Need help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The status of this road and track is actually of byway open to all traffic, so there's designated access. I've amended the ways to suit this status.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, on a particular line there can only be one highway. Placing a second path atop an existing one is duplication even though there may be two routes on that one path. Thus I've removed several sections of the duplicated path.

A much better way to depict the routes is with a route relation. Section up the paths, create a route relation, tag it with the route details name etc then add all sections of that route to the relation. A single section can be used in several route relations and the individual section of the path should not be named. This way folk can see the whole route as one depiction.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed Way: Hulland Ward FP 1 (898045087) as it duplicates original Way: 226454732 which is tagged a public footpath.

Regards Bernard.

No response so I've corrected the obvious faults of duplication and squared things up. Tagged the paths and area private.

Hi,

I was wondering why you deleted these 32 grass areas? Have they all been removed?

Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I notice that to amend/correct the database you've been deleting and redrawing features. May I point out that in making amendments and or corrections in this manner has removed the not only the original feature but also the associated history. It is OSM practice that when a feature needs amendment/correction that amendment/correction is done to the original feater with no deletion. Thus all history associated with the object plus the new history is maintained fully.

Regards Bernard.

Hi Steve,

The bridleway is correctly drawn and tagged to describe a Public Right of Way. Therefore theres is nothing to correct, though there maybe other tags that could be added such as the PRoW reference number.

The red and green dotted lines are a depition that Ordnance Survey use to represent PRoW on their Explorer and Landranger maps. OS is nothing to do with OSM.

It is not directly identified on the OSM frontpage map because that map is not rendered in order to highlight the presence of PRoW's. Please understand that OSM is not a map, it is a database from which data is manipulated to give (via a stylesheet) a desired depiction. On the right side of the OSM frontpage click the Layers icon, there you can choose from 6 differently rendered map styles.

This link https://tinyurl.com/y42n8tke will go to a map style designed to show various trails and PRoW in a style to make them more prominent. Again this map can show different styles/layers, click control, the layer menu can be accessed by hovering over the hamburger icon at top right.

You are free to download OSM data and compile your own style of map. Some maps allow you to download the stylesheet with the data so the stylesheet can be manipulated. I have gone through this process once but for a novice, it's a bit daunting.

I hope that starts to explain things and I'll help further if I can, just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, the name is already tagged in the route Relation: Test Way (9061) so no need to add the name again to the path. It's the route that's named not the path. So I've removed the path name.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, several sections of path you added to the Test Way were placed on top of existing highways, these are already tagged as foot=designated. So I've removed the duplicates.

Regards Bernard.

Made a multipolygon to show the islet is a cutout of the pond and to allow correct rendering.

Hi, Is this rec' open to the public or private school grounds?

Hi, I have moved the residential area off of the highway centerline.

Hi, the feature you tagged as man_made=silo is actually a slurry containment/settlement tank. There looks to be a silo nearer the road in the buildings.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I just wanted to let you know that some sections of paths in the maze have been duplicated by your method of drawing. Doubling back on a line to extend a path in a different direction is self-intersecting on itself thereby causing two lines to be drawn on the same path. Instead of doubling back please draw several lines, this is OSM practice.

If you need help rectifying this area please just ask in the comment box here.

Regards Bernard

motorway removed

Hi Mex,

I'm obviously not sure of what you were doing but I can say what caused the duplication, just for your future reference.

You seem to have made many edits to Way: Stanhope (4763207), the residential landuse polygon for Stanhope. In the last changeset: 97603697 you inadvertently added Highway=residentail to it. Thus adding a very long circular highway. I just removed that extra highway tag.

Regards Bernard.

Hi,
As far as I can see most of the tracks you removed were around the edges of agricultural areas. Some were even tracks separated from agricultural areas by hedges. As I said almost all are visible on aerial imagery, on Ordnance Survey maps and on the Norfolk County Council website map. In fact, the County Council map shows more tracks than are mapped to OpenStreetMap.

One track is tagged as access=destination, the others are all tagged access=agricultural or access=private. So you can see that contributors to OSM have been careful to avoid inferring any inappropriate access.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, apologies I assumed the name was correct, it seems the name is not decided, (or at least I can't find a name).

I think it's far better to accommodate an estate on a single polygon if that's possible and indeed it is here. There were previously about 30 areas making up one estate. Why would you want to break it up into small pieces of the same area? The nearby residential areas are not split into small areas as you propose. A single node for the neighbourhood would define an area of no measurement.

I suppose I would mind if you changed it back to small areas for the reasons above. But I'll not object, argue or seek a reason, it'll be OK with me. There could well be something I'm not able to see.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I moved the building outlines off of the shadows then squared them up. You can easily square up buildings they look much neater.

Regards Bernard.