I've made some changes to these accomodation blocks in edits #68620528, #68620739 and #68621022. I removed the landuse tags and instead split the underlying buildings into seperate buildings. I standardised the size of the buildings and kept with the "building=residentail + residential=university" scheme that is common at Lancaster. I also moved the building names into the address fields as gurglypipe suggested. Cheers.

To reiterate gurglypipe's comments, thanks for mapping these - though I also agree they should be tagged a buildings rather than areas.

However, I don't think apartments is the correct tag. These are shared accomodation blocks - with communial living areas (lounge, kitchen, and bathrooms). Only bedrooms are lockable. Also, it seems the "student_accomodation" scheme is abandoned.

I would suggest you retag as "building=residentail + residential=university". This would also bring these buildings (back) in line with the rest of campus.

Just a note that the public footpath way/672829825 is not accurate. Mapped is the old route, however, the construction work it passes through has resulted in changes to its location. Additionally, planning permission documents show that it is to become a cycle path. I will update with a GPS trace soon (hopefully!).

Updated to change to apartments. I didn't record where the individual doors were, so I couldn't add the specific flat number to an entrance. Instead, I've put the flat number range in the building tags.

changeset/67883042

I guess they are but I didn't really think building=apartments was an appropriate tag. They're more like houses split into flats. They have seperate street entrances (rather than a shared entrance) for example. Perhaps building=residential and then addr:flats might work?

Hi there, is this really the official name for these trees? I can't find any reference on the University's site or map, or elsewhere in fact.

Thanks for reverting this (now the bridge is open again). I hadn't been able to get round to it.

Looks like there might be some further edits to do (https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/strategies-policies-plans/roads-parking-and-travel/major-transport-schemes/greyhound-bridge-lancaster/) but haven't been able to verify personally. Have asked on that changeset thread.

Latest on Council website suggests all should have been completed today: https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/strategies-policies-plans/roads-parking-and-travel/major-transport-schemes/greyhound-bridge-lancaster/

Thanks for the revert.
Has the section of Morecambe Road just after the bridge not re-opened as well?
Following on, is Owen Road/Skerton Bridge/Morecambe Road (adjacent to Ryelands Park) one-way again?

Correction: update parks in galgate.

Indeed. (Whoops!) Fixed in: changeset/62545161

I can confirm (local knowledge) that this change was inaccurate. The revert is correct.

Thanks for the confirmation and link. Very handy!

Yeah I'd noticed that too. I believe it should but am only a visitor to Cemaes, so wanted to double check before removing it. Will check later.

From LCC planning permission, it seems as though it is seperate: http://planningdocs.lancaster.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/00873575.pdf and is owned by United Utilities.

Thanks for adding Arna Wood solar farm. As far as I can tell, I think we're supposed to tag the encorporating area as a power station ground. Additionally, I think the panels immediately adjacent to the waste water works are actually part of "Low Wood" rather than Arna Wood (though perhaps they've been amalgamated).

Done. I note that Lancaster had a mix of use between using nodes and naming landuse areas. Not sure which is better but have gone for nodes based on your comment.
changeset/58041882

Changes will need reverting once building works are complete.

It's a toggle tick option in the iD editor. The default is "assumed to be no" so I just toggle it to "no". It's not a tag I'm manually adding and I thought surely it's better to be definitively no, rather than just assuming it?