Hi,
Please could you say why you have deleted these features? They do look genuine.

There's no need to create multipolygon relations of the bunkers, they are merely simple polygons, (can be drawn with a single line/way) and not parts of multipolygons. I've deleted the 3 multipolygon relations and amended/corrected the bunkers.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Your changes included deleting parts of several areas resulting in many instances of self-intersection. I've reverted all the ones that I can see, thus reinstating the original outlines.

I see you completely deleted 14 other ways. I now wonder if these have also disrupted original areas. Could you please have a look at your deletions to see if amendments are needed?

Regards Bernard.

No response so I've removed the advertising description and indication that the public can visit this location.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap, you asked for feedback in your diary entry, here goes.

You can easily square up buildings, (or other features), with the iD editor. Select the building, (Shift+Ctrl to select multiple buildings), right mouse click (while cursor is over the outline), click the square icon, all are squared up. They should look much neater.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've once again tagged residential areas inside of a larger residential area. That's surely unnecessary duplication.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You tagged these roads as bridge=yes. I take it this was a mistake so I've removed the tags.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, OpenStreetMap is an ongoing worldwide database from which many maps are compiled and rendered.
I guess you were just seeing how things work and uploaded incorrect data not knowing that it was going immediately live to the world.
So because your changes are fiction I've reverted them. Alls well no harm has been done.

If you need help mapping some features please just ask, Regards Bernard.

Forgot to say I looked at the website and could not determine any particular cuisine.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Shisha bar is not a cuisine, so I've tagged it as a description.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

It would be better for OSM practice to limit the number of ways edited in a single changeset. Then other folk can more easily follow what you're doing.

I've made quite a lot of amendments to areas and highways that this changeset edited, because of the changeset size I don't know if the problems were attributed to your good self.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, No need to duplicate data on a building and a POI. I've consolidated the data to the building. Also, postcodes use capital letters.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, There is usually no need for negative tags like intermittent=no or oneway=no as in their absence they are implied.

I've made minor amendments to the water areas.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, there seems to be a public footpath and a cycleway on roughly the same line here. Surely this isn't correct? The definitive map shows the public footpath separate and nearer to the sewage works. Then a separate way (probably the cycleway) joining onto Langford Drive.

Could you have a look at this please?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, these buildings and others around this area to which you've added the tag landuse=residential are actually within an existing larger area tagged landuse=residential. Thus duplication of landuse tagging.

Secondly, regarding this changeset you've got building within building, I think the inner buildings (garages) ought be tagged as a building:part=?

Regards Bernard.

I initially amended to correct self-intersections on those gardens. I corrected a few of the garden areas tagged as residential because they were totally enclosed by another residential area, making for residential enclosed by residential. You deleted Way: 793106372 landuse=residential, the polygon in Changeset #108187937 that enclosed all the houses and gardens.

If you look a bit further you'll see that it's this area of Cambridge that's the odd one out in mapping gardens as residential areas. The vast majority of the country if not the world encloses the totality of a residential area in a larger single polygon. In fact this is also the case for the larger part of Cambridge as well.

Regards Bernard.

Self-intersecting points removed.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I wonder if the holes are actually formally named or are these just reference numbers? If merely reference numbers then the tag would be ref=1, ref-2 etc. If they really are formal names then the name should start with a capital letter and there should be a space between name and number. Formal hole names are usually to show/promote/memorialise a certain feature, person, or object. Thus the name seems not to be a formal verifiable name, hole 1 is just a reference.

Also there's no need for two tags denoting a grass area. A tee has a surface, in this case it's grass. Growing grass in this situation is not landuse, it's to provide a surface.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your path Millenium way is in part on top of Long Road, part beside and on top of an existing footpath. Then partly on top of a stream where you've mapped five fords.

Are you trying to map this walk:- http://www.hardwick-cambs.org.uk/footpaths-walks/ if so then it needs a lot of correcting. I think it might be best to remove this mapping and start again.

Need help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, a node in a highway tagged with a name only doesn't convey any feature/object information. Is it a highway feature or something else? Could it refer to the land area just south of here tagged as Parr Bridge, which is referred to as Parr Brow on Ordnance Survey Maps (Node: Parr Bridge (30416816)? Anyway it ought not to be a node of the highway.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, If this is not the current formal and verifiable name then it ought not be used. If it's an historic name you could use the tag old_name=New Manchester as per this advice old_name=*

Regards Bernard.