Hi, No problem, glad to help.

Your mentioning that they seemed not to join prompted me to look again to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Now I see that actually (before your duplicate tunnel), neither the tunnel nor the two bridges had a layer tag. Routers would not then be able to determine how the highways passed each other, this could have resulted in the cycleway appearing not a continuous route. I've now also tagged the bridges as layer=1, thus routers know the cycleway goes under the A180. Please let me know if there's still a problem with the cycleway.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You duplicated the tunnel section of the highway. I've removed the duplicate and placed your new tags on the existing highway.

The existing highway section holds a relation for a cycle route.

Please note to amend existing features rather than deleting and redrawing, or drawing anew over the existing ones.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, No not a fan of twitter. You can send a message direct by clicking on my handle above. I'll help if I can.

The message to Jim via the website contact bounced back.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, The descriptive name tag is removed. Regards Bernard.

Hi, I removed the name as that's not a formal verifiable name.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, The contact web page works so I've amended the website address and informed Jim.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You requested a review, this is very difficult due to the large number, (over 100), of features that are contained in this single changeset. You had two highway warnings in this changeset, to find and correct those warnings one has to now go through a lot of the individual edits. So it's a good policy to upload edits regularly with ten to twenty edits per upload (changeset). Also, please keep your editing in a reasonably small bounding box (area).

Anyway, I'll try to go through everything and make the necessary corrections.
The first problem is the joining footway Way: 1020234952 to cable line Way: 388353168.
The tag name=Suds Area, Suds Area would not be a formal verifiable name I've changed the tag to description=Sustainable urban drainage systems, several of these.
I've squared up all of the buildings.
I removed the farmland multipolygon relation/11039673 as it's a mere polygon.

I made quite a few corrections and squared up all the buildings but that was a pretty good first editing session. Need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Well done, I've changed the car park to a private garden and just tweaked the outlines a bit.

Need Any help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Crikey that was six years ago! I think the reason at that time was I could not decide what was best to do, but I wanted to mark the area. History, the original hall, a massive building was demolished/divided up years ago. The complex is still the hub of the Dillington Hall farm estate. Your prompt has led me to find one of the buildings is now called Dillington Hall. I've amended it to suit.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that when you added the steps (Way: 1018910715), you placed them on top of the path (Way: 1018910714) thus making a duplication of highways. What you ought to do is section off the piece of the path where the steps are to go, remove that section of path and insert the steps. Or if easier map/draw the three sections separately.

I've corrected the duplication by removing the path section where the steps are.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

As there was a gate barring the way through you shouldn't have been routed through here. Your cycling routing app is probably at fault and will mislead you in similar circumstances. You ought to inform the cycle app compliers.

Anyway, your tagging was OK but there is obviously private access here so a better tag is access=private. I've amended the tags to suit this. I also added the second gate, tagging them both access=private.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your changes resulted in a couple of footpaths being removed and your new way duplicating part of an existing way. No problem now though as I've reverted your changes. I then tidied up the features in the area, removing overlaps and squaring things up.

Need any help please just ask, Regards Bernard.

Hi, I can assure you that this issue is always considered and when it happens it is inadvertent. The link you point to is a "General recommendation" only, not an obligation.

In actual fact, this changeset is not big at all definitely not to be considered huge, as it only contains 8 edited nodes. I think you are are confusing the changeset with the bounding box. This one is large but it only contains changes in a couple of very small areas of the overall bounding box.

Lastly, it is very easy to track the edits contained in a changeset no matter the size of the bounding box. The real issue is the number of individual edits in the changeset, it has nothing to do with the bounding box size. It just now took me less than a minute to check up on the 8 nodes edited in this changeset.

I suppose my only question is why do you want to track the edits in any changeset.? What makes you think there may be something that needs checking/tracking?
If you need help or advice on how to check up on edits in a changeset please just ask. I've done this many thousands of times and feel quite confident finding and correcting mistakes.

Regards Bernard.

No response but anyway I'd like to say thank you for removing these features. I still don't think they were footpaths.

What about the second problem, the ways tagged unclassified highway, that look like they are on a canal course? If you zoom in you can see the canal line with a trackway on either side. You can even make out bridges.

I await your response, Regards Bernard.

Thank you for making the corrections. It would have been polite to respond to comments.

Hi, You placed several service roads on top of existing footpaths making duplication of highways thus disrupting routing. I've removed your duplications and amended the existing highways.

Please bear in mind these problems for your future mapping.

Regards Bernard.

Hello Guy,
I noticed the nodes as I regularly look at OSM Inspector to make lots of corrections in the UK and other places I'm interested in around the world. It's addictive, I like doing it (puzzle solving), I have lots of time and I think it helps out.

Anyway, the ones I corrected yesterday are now not showing on OSM Inspector but a new one shows up this morning. Here's a link to it:- https://tinyurl.com/2p84jbhj

I'll leave it alone for you to look at/correct. Need any help please just ask, fixing these with JOSM is fairly easy.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've made a lot of mistakes in several of your changesets.

There are warnings listed above, (and in the other changesets), 24 instances here of highways crossing buildings, highways crossing railways with no join, Highway crossing highway with no join, and highway crossing water with no bridge.

A lot of these mistakes will mean disruption of routing software that uses OSM data.

Could you please go back over all your mapping and correct these numerous mistakes? Please learn from these mistakes before making more changes. Need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Just wanted to let you know that you are occasionally making duplicate nodes, (maybe double clicking).

Regards Bernard.

Hello,
Please be aware that the tag highway=road will be ignored by applications directed at end-users.

Do not expect highway=road to be rendered.
Do not expect highway=road to be routable.

Could you please also look at the comment on your previous changeset and make corrections.

Regards Bernard.