Thanks for your edit. When you draw new buildings, you probably want to square the corners. Using the iD editor, select the building and then use the button to square the corners

Hi. If you are going to add features to openStreetMap, please tag them correctly.

The wiki has a lot of information about how to tag things such as trees.

See natural=tree

Landuse=residential is normally used for entire housing estates or districts within a town/city.

See relation/4007363

These buildings should be left with building=house

That all makes sense. Perhaps you could add a landuse=construction area in the meantime until the construction is finished

I was just wondering why you've removed the car-park. Is it no longer there?

Where the building contains two houses, it would be good to draw each as a separate rectangle tagged as building=house. Then details such as addr:housenumber can be added to each house

Did you carry out a survey when making these changes to the map?

Are you sure the buildings are detached houses? From the aerial imagery (and other similar properties in Lancaster) they look like they might be semi-detached.

If the buildings are rectangular, they should be drawn with orthogonal corners. There is a tool in the iD editor that will square the corners for you

Resolved in changeset/53488407

Good spot, - I'd agree with this on a consistency basis and what you say about the outline. Anyone should be able to see that most of these are two house numbers in one building = semi-detatched house

Why `path` as opposed to `footway` ?
From memory there are three cairns in at least one of the locations. They are more like carefully constructed rock pillar than a pile of stones

Changed in changeset/52418986. Does that seem ok. The other side of the road, the pavement is immediately adjacent to the road

Hi Don,
Thanks for your edit. I see that you have edited the footpath that joins on to Sunnyside Lane.

I don't know if this is still the case, but there used to be a fence between the road and the parallel footpath. I feel the way the path was drawn previously may represent better the layout on the ground.

What are your thoughts on this?

JohnO

way/188940204

That would make sense because an area doesn't have a direction specified in the same way a line does.

They each have a front-door entrance at ground level so they are probably houses. Unlike a row of terraced houses, it isn't clear exactly how the properties are divided within the building.

I think the best thing would be to remove the `addr:interpolation` tag, but it would be nice to specify that the building contains only odd numbers. I don't really like the idea of drawing a separate way

Having read that page, I think so too. In iD, I just drew a polygon, and then searched for `church`. It appears it should also have an amenity=place_of_worship tag too. Fixed in changeset/52217834

Thanks for the prompt reply.

Go to changeset/51472024, and click the edit button at the top of the screen.

In the editor, right click the node, and a dustbin should appear, which will allow you to delete it.

Hello. Thank you for your edit. Are you sure this is the correct location for Europcar Car Hire?

There is already a `Europcar` marked on the map (see way/436358197) which has been there for over 1 year.

Removed in changeset/51845400

The mountain rescue box is NOT a shop. It is a supply of equipment used by mountain rescue teams in an emergency. A member of the public cannot buy equipment here.

The mountain rescue box has already been added to the map:
way/396197926

Thanks for your edit. Any idea what has happened to the service-road, which now appears beneath the motorway slip road?

https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=86&error=102286504

I'm aware it's good to try to join ways onto the rest of the map. I'd only added the bit I walked along when I was there recently. I'd say that the line of a path seen on the satelitte imagery is probably correct - and therefore what you have drawn is probably correct. Unfortunately I don't have a GPS track.