I suspect this could have been a josm-latest bug or upload failure. Either way, I've used JOSM to fix the duplicated nodes (and a few other building validation issues).
Changeset:
changeset/55904437

Glad to help - I'm following the canal adding detail to areas from past visits.

The house numbering looks far from straightforward - odd/even/consecutive and even 'a'.
What would we do without the JOSM terracer? :-)

Happy Mapping,

James

This was a pre-existing typo, likely between designation= and highway.
This change set fixed way/37651458 but left this short stub as it was.
Both are now updated following: osm.wiki/UK_access_provisions#England_and_Wales

Hi Sibrown1,

Nothing to apologise for at all - thanks for helping to improve OSM!

James

Hi again,
The new sections of highway seemed to be rendering strangely, so I had a look using a different editing tool (JOSM - powerful, but complex).
This showed a few sections had two roads, or ways overlapping with different tags - as the browser editing tool, iD is known to make this particularly hard to see and fix, I've taken the liberty of removing the duplicates.
Would you mind taking a look to see if the result looks OK please?
All the best,
James

Hi sibrown1, and welcome to OSM!

Has the new phase of Orchid Crescent opened fully to traffic and residents please?

If not, can I suggest you review the tagging - highway=construction plus construction=residential may be better where work is incomplete:
construction=*

Happy mapping!

Hi Robert,

What an interesting cross-check - no doubt an expansion of your excellent Post Hoc geospatial analysis (used to survey NE22/NE23/NE24/NE64 in the past).

The data came from a friend of mine who lived at the house, however after checking back with old address lists, that postcode also appeared as:
19 Burghley Gardens, Pegswood, Morpeth, Northumberland. NE61 6TN.

After checking later address book archive, the correct postcode looks to be:
49 Mitford Road, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 6RG.

So, an excellent spot, now corrected!

Welcome jag5039 to OSM!

You excellent changeset notes suggest this way has two different names on each side.
Can I suggest an even better way to show this is with the name:left and name:right tags
name=*

It looks like the Bing imagery has been updated around here, so I've added the address tags, and added in a few more house shapes as you mention extra buildings next to the A1068.

Can I suggest using your detailed knowledge of the streets and numbers to add address tags to the house shapes themselves please?:
osm.wiki/Addresses

Best regards, and happy mapping!

Hi Andy,

My changes were limited to adding detail to Burston which just happened to include sections of Two Saints Way (e.g. from the Trent foot bridge to the Greyhound).

Here's the survey trace for reference:
@James%20Derrick/traces/2209461

ISTR re-ordering the segments changed within the relation to improve the flow, but made no attempt to duplicate nor edit outside this area.

The edits were indeed made using JOSM - is there a known 'feature' when editing partially downloaded large relations please?

Attempting a merge of duplicate relations over such a large area sounds hideously manual. :(

As there has been no response, I will remove the erroneous tags.

As there has been no response, I will remove the erroneous tags.

Hi Plastic Pig and welcome to the OSM community!

Does the postcode and housenumber you have added to an estate road apply to the whole street of houses?

If not, can I suggest you remove the tag from the highway=residential? Please drop a comment back if I can help.

Also, for a residential road, addr:street is usually the same as the name tag so often omitted. Can I suggest you look at changing to addr:place or addr:suburb for Eastfield Lea?
addr=*

The whole residential area (grey bit!) is tagged Eastfield, but could be split into the individual estates.

I've not tried the editing tools in gnome-maps, but it looks like you're finding your way quite well - good luck!

Hi Plastic Pig and welcome to the OSM community!

Does the postcode you have added to a short piece of estate road apply to the whole close of houses?

If not, can I suggest you remove the tag from the highway=residential and add to an individual point, exactly as you did later please?

(I didn't know that Gnome 3.2 included map editing - must upgrade my own kit!)

Hi Andy,

Good idea - revising my tagging of the CBD 3 years later, I'd suggest building=retail is a better generic choice these days without having specific details of a shop=<value>.

From memory, most buildings are shops, without significant other uses (e.g. flats above) where building=yes would be more accurate.

My next chance of a physical survey will be April, (depending on CaRT canal maintenance) but in the mean time, I'll add the credible waypoints, set building=retail and remove shop=yes now.

TTFN,
James

Hi,

The ACC have turned up some additional information:
http://www.ashbycanal.org.uk/ashby_canal_restoration.html

This gives the historic name of 'Faulkes Bridge', which I've added.

All the best,

James

Hi Trigpoint,

I'd not be offended if you removed the name tag for consistency, but thought the duplication with bridge_ref was useful in the absence other data.

Bridge numbers certainly rank below that of the name of the link carried by the span however this an agricultural accommodation bridge and I don't know an alternate name for the way.

The historic NPE sheets don't show any names, and the restoration society/ WRG/ canal press all call it 'Bridge 62':
http://www.ashbycanal.org.uk/ashby_canal_restoration.html

I'd suggest that as Ashby Canal bridges include the number on a large cast iron plate on the parapet, 'Bridge 62' would be of value to a walker. Indeed, CaRT advice is to use them if calling 999 after they passed geo data to the emergency services.

I unfortunately can't categorically evidence the latest 'ground truth' at completion, but drone pictures are published with what appear to be cast name plates on the bridge parapets.

BTW - all references I've seen to the waterway to the North are Gilwiskaw Brook, rather than the River Mease - any thoughts please? I added an alt_name to be cautious.

All the best,

James

Hi,

There was a very noticeable kink just West of the B6503 bridge over the A6192. It did look like the boundary of two sections of road centred on different base data, so I attempted to smooth the jagged transition into a more realistic arc looking at both the Bing and limited GPS trace data (7 traces, widely spread).
I would prefer not to revert the change set, as it also adds other detail, such as the bridge over the tail bywash of Staveley Town Lock.
If you are able to suggest a Bing imagery offset amount, I can use JOSM to move the road features to it, fairing in at the edges to avoid moving the entire county!

Some of your building outlines seem ~3.5m North, which sadly is about the North offset between Garmin 550 and 660 GPSr running simultaneously on my survey bike so it is hard to tell.

As you suggest, the CCT are making great progress with construction in the area, and hope to map the new bridge over the lock tail in a few months.
http://www.chesterfield-canal-trust.org.uk/index.php/gallery/photos/494-staveley-town-lock

Hi,

Would you mind commenting on the changes you made in this change set please?

Analysis suggests you used Bing imagery to improve the alignment of cycleway NCN1, and add good detail to a number of other tracks and footways around Blyth and Seaton Sluice, but this took time to understand.

Can you consider adding changeset comments to help others improving the map around the country work together better please?
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks,

James

Hi,

Can I ask you to review this edit please?

From my physical survey, this is a narrow permissive footpath including up and down a steep bank with rough wooden steps cut into the hillside.

The Northumberland County Council Public Rights of Way map does not list this way, and local signs show it was a permissive path only.

It was mapped as access=permissive, which this change removes.

Given the gradient, and steps, cycling down it would be extremely dangerous even with a mountain bike, so bicycle=yes seems surprising.

It was mapped against this scheme:
osm.wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_Access_Provisions

Can you please review your edit and make appropriate changes?

Thanks,

James

Hi,

Can I ask you to review this edit please?

This is a narrow footbridge carrying a public footpath across a stream. At the East side, there is a barrier to restrict access to foot=yes only (width=0.5 m).

The signs on marker posts, and Northumberland County Council Public Rights of Way map confirm this is a Public Footpath, and it was mapped as foot=designated, following this scheme:
osm.wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_Access_Provisions

My physical survey (pictures available), suggests bicycle=yes, horse=yes, and access=yes are wrong. I suggest motor_vehicle=yes is not needed on highway=footway.

Your other related edits in this area seem to have removed other similar tagging. Note most paths here are permissive for walking only.

Can you please review your edit and make appropriate changes?

Thanks,

James