Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap

You somehow moved the gate to block the unclassified highway. I've moved it off of the public highway to the side where I think it ought to be.

Regards Bernard.

It does exist, it is the definitive line of the highway, it is verifiable, it is a highway and will remain the highway until the line is legally amended. I walk this line whenever possible. When it's ploughed up I find an alternative route to overcome the obstruction, as I am allowed to do. The field edge is not a public highway.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've removed the house number from the name tag. The name tag is for a formal verifiable name.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed several duplicated sections of highway that you accidentally uploaded. Please try to avoid duplicating highways.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, There is access to the public footpath, (Way: 1131926552) at least on foot. Therefore the tag access=no is not valid. So I've removed the access=no tag. Did you mean to tag it as vehicle=no?

I also removed a duplicate section of the track near the ponds.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, This path is still a public right of way. You should report the lack of reinstatement to the county council. I've reinstated it.

Regards Bernard.

Duplicated section of the highway was removed.

Hi, The roundabout had several routes associated with it that needed to be kept intact. Also, you inadvertently made a duplicate highway. So I've reverted the changeset and then adjusted the layout to what I think you wanted.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

If some access is allowed, foot=yes, then it can't be access=no. I've removed the access=no tag.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, There's no need to duplicate the data on a POI, I've removed the POI and put all data on the building.

Regards Bernard.

Another duplicated way, Way: 1128438556 I've removed. Please go back and check your mapping.

Hi, A bicycle does not have a designated use status on a designated public footpath.

Hi,
Section 30(1) of the Countryside Act 1968 gives the public the right to ride a bicycle on any bridleway but, in exercising that right, cyclists must give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback. Section 30(4) provides that section 30(1) shall not affect any definition of “bridleway” in the Countryside Act 1968 or any other Act.

30 Riding of pedal bicycles on bridleways.

(1)Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, [F1not being a mechanically propelled vehicle], on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.

(2)Subsection (1) above has effect subject to any orders made by a local authority, and to any byelaws.

(3)The rights conferred by this section shall not affect the obligations of the highway authority, or of any other person, as respects the maintenance of the bridleway, and this section shall not create any obligation to do anything to facilitate the use of the bridleway by cyclists.

(4)Subsection (1) above shall not affect any definition of “bridleway” in this or any other Act.

So to state a use bicycle=yes is correct, but to state, bicycle=designated would not necessarily be correct as the original Highways Act did not designate cycling on a bridleway.

Your reference to NT activities seems to be a proposal of guidance by the landowner only, and is not based on law.

Regards Bernard.

Duplicated Way: 1128438559 is removed.

Hi, Sorry but again warnings above that ought to be looked at.

Way: 1128438557 duplicates Way: 1128433780 so I've removed it.

Way: 1128433780 also twice crosses a stream, is there possibly a bridge or ford here?

Way: 1128438558 duplicates Way: 1128438558 so I've removed it.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You have several warnings listed above regarding crossing highways and waterways. It would be really good practice to try and resolve these issues.

Regarding the public bridleway (Way: 1128433774) foot is designated on a public bridleway, I've amended it.
Also Way: 1128438551 duplicates Way: 1128433774, I've removed the duplication.

Regards Bernard

Hi, I think these are semi detached houses, so if drawn as one building then the tag is building=residential. A building that is a single house would be tagged building=house.

If you zoom in further you will be able to draw the buildings much more accurately. And to be even neater use the square-up feature.

Need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The school was tagged as per OSM best practice with the main tags being on the school premises outline. Please see here for more details:- amenity=school

Thus I've reverted this changeset.

Regards Bernard

Hi, In the absence of a oneway tag it is implied that oneway=no, thus adding oneway=no is not usually necessary. There are some rare exceptional cases but not here.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The surface tag value for the paths would be simply concrete. I've amended the tags.

Regards Bernard.