Hi, I've removed the way Auchleven (427719668, v5) as it duplicates Way: 1087668290.

I've added a POI Node: Auchleven (9967139734) to hold the village data as per OSM practice.

Regards Bernard

Hi, You need to give more information than just tourism=attraction. Also, please place the POI on the attraction rather than in the middle of a road. Otherwise the POI should be removed.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Your new road Way: Department of Geoinformatics to Aniket Canteen (1087130771) is mainly a duplication of existing highways. Also, the tags seem somewhat illogical. Thus I've removed the duplicate way.

Regards Bernard.

Hello There, I think what might have happened is that the new cycle path you added (Way: 1086970534, named Wyt), was orthogonalised. This means that all nodes were amended to make a straight line. I've taken a screenshot of the area of the now-deleted Way: 1086970534, named Wyt. You can download the screenshot here:- https://ufile.io/6p85wb0a

Even if the above assumption is not exactly what happened it was the straightening of Way: 1086970534 that dragged things out of correct alignment.

Regards Bernard.

Thanks for replying, it's now removed.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed your Way: Johnny Cut Road (1086679909) as it duplicates Way: Johnny Cut Road (1086678978) that your Amazon Logistics colleague jsmoham added 3 minutes before you added it.

Duplication of highways would really mess up routing for your drivers. Please work together to try and avoid duplication, or check the warnings above.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, With the exception of Way: 1086970535 I've reverted these changes because you somehow inadvertently dragged lots of existing features out of alignment. All is OK now.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, It looks like Way: 1027478085 is not needed, perhaps you inadvertently added a duplicate line? Can it be removed?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, If pedestrians have access to the footpath then access=no is incorrect. I've removed the acess=no tag. It's a footpath which implies non other that foot traffic is allowed.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, this is already mapped, it's part of St Christophers Village tourism hostel.
Osm object/feature Way: St Christophers Village (100799887)

Hi, I just want to point out that what you've done here is actually duplicating several highways. This seriously disrupts routing. You've placed raceway highways on top of existing highways.

The Formula E raceway is already mapped in the route Relation: Formula E (9716334). Here it is:- relation/9716334 So there is no need to map it again. If amendments are needed the relation is what should be amended/edited, not just draw duplications over existing mapping.

Could you please correct your mapping at least to remove the duplicate highways?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I just wanted to let you know that Upper Level (Demolished) is not a name, I've changed it to a note tag.

Also if a building is demolished, (not now in existence), then it should be removed from OSM.

Regards Bernard

Hi, You somehow added duplicated highways Way: Hollowood Lane (1086145000) and Way: Hollowood Lane (1086144774) by drawing them on top of existing highways.

I've removed the duplicate keeping your new surface tags.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, It was flagged as a self-intersection so I knew which outline was causing the problem. Even so, it was challenging to detect where the self-intersection was. Eventually, I pulled the suspect out and found a duplicated node. Glad to help. How do you view these building shapes?

Regards Bernard.

No response so I've removed the name from the highway.

Hi, Just to let you know you inadvertently duplicated Hartington Street by adding Way: Hartington Street (1085735761) atop of the existing road.

I've removed the duplicate.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I'm sure there are barriers here so they ought not to be removed simply because you cannot route through them. I can't see that you uploaded data to say open to all vehicles, even if you did it would take several days to be used by routers. Could you say what software refused to route across the railway?

I've added back the barriers tagging them to allow vehicles and non-motorized traffic. Please wait at least a few days for the data to take effect.

By the way, the crossing at Station Road, Lakenheath to the west of here has the barriers tagged as just lift_gate and routing is as expected allowing all traffic through.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Way: 924389691 is a service road serving some garages.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You dragged the joined building out of alignment and overlapped them. I wonder if you realise that the Bing imagery you used might not be precisely placed, often it's way off. The Maxar imagery showed the building precisely positioned. So before moving things you need to check that they need moving and that where they are moved to is better. Also check that the move doesn't conflict with other objects.

Thus I've reversed the change.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Thanks for responding and your good explanation of the layout. I've amended the building to three sections tagging the path as tunnel=building_passage. It was easier for me to do it than explain what to do, hope you don't mind. The routing takes time to come into effect, I'll check that it's OK later.

With the building as three sections would it be correct to say one is toilets, one is ticket/membership, and the other obviously a passageway? If so the two POI descriptions should be placed on the appropriate building tagging.

Regards Bernard.