Hi wileycoyote2019,
One thing that's missing from the iD intro to mapping is any mention of the imagery and alignment issues.
If you find yourself looking at a bunch of roads and buildings that are apparently all out of alignment in the same direction and amount, it is probably the imagery not the mapping which is out. For mapping in the UK, the background layer OS_OpenData_StreetView is typically a good stable reference point, other imagery tends to change exact alignment from one version to another and one place to another.
Even though the latest Bing imagery is super sharp and vertical it's out of position in some places. In the backgrounds tab in iD you'll see the option to switch image sources and scrolling down an ability to move the imagery when required.
Hope this helps, happy mapping,
Cebderby (Clive)

The existing roads and buildings are (well, were) in excellent alignment. The main "correction" you seem to have done here is to delete mapped features and move ways out of alignment. (The Bing imagery is clearly out of alignment here). Please fix or revert.

You have again (noting changeset/81414842)
merged 2 roundabouts with many bus routes carefully mapped through them into single circles. You need to stop doing this. If you feel that making a roundabout more circular is correct and valuable to OSM then you may be able to draw a new temporary way using all the existing nodes, make that circular and delete it again. But with care. I can revert this changeset or you can fix all the bus routes if you prefer.

I have removed the abandoned:highway you wrongly added in this changeset and reinstated the noexit=yes you wrongly removed. There are no abandoned roadways here. Please read abandoned=*:
and review and correct any other use of this prefix or false additions you have made in this manner

In this changeset you connected the Bakerloo line to a surface road junction. It's really important that you understand what is present where you edit, especially in central London, and particularly if you use an editor which auto-joins near nodes without telling you.
You also set layer=-1 on a surface way under the National Gallery 'bridge'. This you should have identified as a false error indication and rejected the issue (and/or complained to whoever showed you this as an issue). I have corrected these mistakes.

In this changeset you have said that there is a very large irregular shaped Sainsbury's store building, in place and open for business, which sits in an industrial area and touches onto the middle of a service road. I don't think any of the above is true. If the industrial buildings have been demolished, remove them. If the industrial area is now smaller, make it smaller. If there is a construction site, carefully add it, with the true shape, not intersecting with roads.

vandalism reverted

vandalism reverted

'As it happens' doesn't enter into it. If there were ways at ground level that these pass under, they would be layer -1. It is specifically *because* there is nothing - either ways or any surface at this level - over these ways aside from the layer=1 service ramp, that means that layer -1 is not required. Outside the building the ways are continuously visible as the surface, albeit modified height from natural ground. Inside, the area marked as Debenhams extends over the shorter in+out ways to the underground parking, so these are under an implied floor at layer=0. The rest is not indicated as being under anything at this level, I think just in a 'cutting' like outside? FYI the page at layer=*
is worth a read.

In comments for reverted changeset/89701444 I said that false connections added would be reverted. You have again divided a tunnel way, removed the layer tags and joined it to surface roads, adding a crossing at a node then shared by the (ex) tunnel way, the surface road and an underground platform. You have also added, again, layer=-1 to a building. Accordingly the changeset has been reverted.

For sharpness, absence of shadows, verticality, the new Bing imagery is possibly the best imagery we have ever had. Just align it to the map. The problem is not the imagery.

The issues here are false connection of ways and nodes which are not intended to be connected. There may be few people relying on OSM in Pontefract or even Wakefield for foot and public transport navigation, but there are likely to be thousands doing so in central London. False connections cannot be tolerated. One footway you added in one of the edits connected in sequence: a surface road - underground track - underground platform - another surface road - a lift inside a building - the adjacent lift - a tunnel footway. By connecting these with a footway you are saying there is a route (and step free so potentially wheelchair accessible) directly from each of these to the next. And different underground tracks might all happen to have layer=-3 and cross each other, eg because the mappers don't know which is above the the other. This does not mean that the tracks should be connected. Connecting footways etc carefully mapped passing over each other with different layers is just bad.

And the apparent approach to try to clear highlighted 'issues' by the easiest/first means possible, eg putting a layer value on one or other is very very bad. Layer is generally not a tag for buildings. Negative layer on ways generally means underground eg in tunnel under another way, positive elevated eg on bridge over another way. Sometimes ways do cross building boundaries, especially in cities with complicated 3d shapes. The map is better with the so-called 'issues' left in place than with guessed fixes applied.
Try to map in areas you know, aim to make the map a useful (eg think of road, foot, cycle,public transport routing) simplified (eg don't add footways which are actually just ordinary sidewalks) representation of the reality, rather than attempting to fix 'issues'. Trying to fix 'issues' in areas you do not know is often damaging, not beneficial.

Too many problems with this edit:
False connections added between ways correctly mapped as being at different levels, or unconnected like underground lines passing over each other, including false level crossings. Layer 1 and -1 values added seemingly at random to some buildings and ways. Some features moved to match unaligned Bing imagery. To protect the integrity of the map, this has been reverted. Changes are visible at https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=89701458
if there are brand: or addr: additions which are useful to be re-applied. False way connection and realignment will be reverted.

Too many problems with this edit:
Node dragged and joined to remote area. False connections added between ways correctly mapped as being at different levels, or unconnected like underground lines passing over each other. Layer 1 and -1 values added seemingly at random to some buildings and ways. Some features moved to match unaligned Bing imagery. To protect the integrity of the map, this has been reverted. Changes are visible at https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=89701444
if there are brand: or addr: additions which are useful to be re-applied. False way connection and realignment will be reverted.

Yes, multiple nodes dragged/merged, cannot keep - reverted. Changes visible at https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=89419718
if there's anything worth re-applying.

Thanks for restoring the vital highway=bus_stop tags.
Can you review whether changing bus= to psv= is really what is meant (eg at Derby bus station). If I understand correctly psv is bus and taxi; bus is correct for bus only.
Also by marking ways access=no (with eg psv=desig.) it blocks foot, when the way and its sidewalks is the route to the stop and often appropriate (outside bus station areas). Other combinations like motor_vehicle=no,bus=yes can be good (if foot and cycle is ok) or go with access=no;bus/psv=...;foot=yes

man_made=reservoir_covered
may be appropriate?

Please don't think of the OSM map as the (default) render, this is just one possible view of the OSM data; 'yellow' and 'dotted' are not properties of the roads or in OSM's map database. The B4058 is on a bridge over the river, so that part needs to be mapped as bridge=yes,layer=1 (ignoring M32 at this point). The part of the M32 that crosses the B4058 bridge then has to be at layer=2 as it is higher. As the M32 provides a wide continuous concrete 'roof' over the top, it's ok to add covered=yes to the relevant part of the B4058.

See comment added at
changeset/86145036

See comment added at changeset/86145036

Having reviewed all your 22 edits over the last 3 years I note that:
- Not one of your edits contains any useful addition to the map, all are false fiddling with road names and speed limits, typically leaving the values wrong after 2 or 3 repeated changes. This is vandalism.
- The false or damaged road names and modified speed limits have been left, and had to be corrected by others, leaving the map wrong eg for ~1 year in some cases.
- You have failed to respond to all of the changeset comments, in changesets 50406379 50406445 85560920 86130750 86144570
- The first of these comments, on the first edit from this account, identified to you that the 'editor' you are using is wrongly adding way tags to the changeset itself. This you have neither acknowledged or rectified.

You will kindly cease making any changes with this 'editor', unless and until you make changesets with the correct tags, and have useful and positive content to add.
Any further changesets of this nature may be reverted without further warning.