Any reason you changed the name of Milford-on-Sea relation/3949124 ? They clearly self-identify with hyphens http://www.milfordonsea.org.uk/ .

Oops - I think that something went a bit wrong here. The relation relation/3995199 now has a building tag on it - I suspect that that should be only on the building in the middle. Also there are now 2 "amenity=pub" - it'd make sense to have either the building or the "outer" way for the whole pub (which probably doesn't exist yet) tagged as that, but probably not both.

Yay! Someone else trying to sort out the missing tracks in Nevada.

In case you don't already know, many of these tracks were originally imported as "residential roads" from TIGER data, but weren't very positionally accurate. Lots of them were patched up a bit, and a large number were deleted by one user. For example, your new track seems to be mostly part of this one that was deleted:

way/14378267/history

The changeset that deleted that also deleted lots of others:

changeset/19941307

You may find it easier to "undelete" some of the deletions in there and then nudge them towards the path on the imagery rather than recreating from scratch (though you may need to use a different OSM editor to do that - I suspect that "iD" can't undelete previously deleted data).

I've been doing similar things a bit further south (see for example way/14388627 ).

Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you want to ask anything.

For info the mapping here looks off so I've added note/386502

You appear to have extended a residential road way/118081585/history through a hedge into the university site; are you sure that it really connects? It really isn't clear from the imagery.

Does way/307485650/history really exist? It seems unlikely that it is building=house and natural=water?

Something's gone wrong with merge at way/25984639 I think - the name is currently showing as "Metropolitan;Metropolitan Line"

Might it be possible to be a little more descriptive with changeset comments (e.g. 'changing "service" to "source" when the previous mapper obviously meant "source=bing"') and a little more local with changesets? This covers the whole world, so will be in everyone's "history" list - it's impossible to tell what's local just from the OSM site.

I think that something may have gone a bit wrong here - you've changed "Level" on way/267518166/history to "building:levels". Given that it's a "highway=path", this seems unlikely. It's not exactly clear what the original mapper meant, so maybe a changeset comment on the original changeset or a note might be a better way to try and resolve the issue?

Dos way/355305504 join at the north or south side of the gate at the southern end?

Hello! I think that something has gone a bit wrong with way/355557975 - it's not actually joined at either end, so nothing will ever be able to route over it (in fact, if it's just a normal footpath by the side of the road, it's probably better just to add "sidewalk=left" (or whatever) rather than trying to add a separate footpath.

I've deleted it in changeset/32142156 - see the reasoning there.

For info I didn't add a comment on the changeset that caused this problem because (a) my tourist Spanish would struggle and (b) I didn't want to scare a user off by commenting negatively on their first edit.

In answer to "Can we see contours while editing?" It might be possibly in "iD" (the editor that you're using) by selecting "Custom" in the imagery preferences and entering "http://tile.opencyclemap.org/cycle/{z}/{x}/{y}.png". That shows the OpenCycleMap imagery (the same as you see on the "cycle map" layer on the OSM site). It shows contours derived from SRTM data (measured from space and not as good as you'd see on e.g. an OS map), but might be useful. The footpath now shows a little bit south of the GPS traces - I suspect what's happening there is that the GPS traces are offset because at the bottom of Lathkill Dale a GPS is not seeing the whole sky and is consistently giving an offset, and isn't a problem. Last year I seem to remember nudging a different bit of this footpath towards the river; so thanks for doing this bit!

Thanks for that - I think I can see what happened now. It was the lack of deleted ways that was confusing me.

Er - hello again - I think that something's gone a bit wrong here. It looks like you've copied the name of a tumulus at the top of a hill that was shown on an old 1:25k map to OpenStreetMap as the name of a hill. Unfortunately, you'll notice if you look at the OSM map or the Bing imagery that there's now actually a quarry where the hill used to be. Or do you think that the imagery and current OSM mapping is incorrect?

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I notice that you've added a hill here called "Cats Edge". However, that name is already in OpenStreetMap as the name of a hamlet just to the west. Is "Cats Edge" the name of a hamlet, the name of a hill, or both? Generally speaking you'd only add one thing to OpenStreetMap to represent one thing in the real world (and you'd choose the right thing - you wouldn't choose "natural=peak" just because it shows up on the "standard" map).

Given that those local aren't gifted with psychic powers, I've added note/382690 so that they know that there is an issue :)

You've added "walk=yes" here, but do you perhaps really mean "foot=yes", if it is even required? It's hardly used at all - http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/walk#values . Although there's a Chilean entry in osm.wiki/Highway:International_equivalence , you might want to check with the local community (perhaps via https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-latam) how they'd suggest mapping these.

Surely node/3585629293 is just a duplicate of the already existing way/123590126 ?