(Fixed in changeset/59811933.)

Nice, thanks!

Are those opening hours right? The opening_hours key uses a 24-hour clock; I doubt the Spar is only open for 3 hours in the morning!

Have the NatWest and police station buildings actually been demolished? If not, don’t delete the ways; just alter how they’re tagged, typically by adding the `disused:` prefix: disused=*:

Similarly, have those bus stops on the B6384 been removed entirely, or are there just no buses which stop there at the moment? i.e. Are the bus stops physically present now?

This edit looks fine (thanks for requesting review), but in future it would be better to leave a more informative description for the changeset than “A small touch up” — try briefly listing what you’ve changed. It makes it easier for others to track what’s being edited in their area. Thanks!

If you could add that, that would be helpful, since it’s likely nobody else has surveyed that area recently.

What’s the car park being replaced with? Should this be tagged as a construction area instead now, or something else?

I think those should be easy changes — please feel free to make them! I (or someone else) can double-check your edits afterwards and give feedback if it’s necessary.

Before editing, you might want to read up on the tagging scheme for cycleways (if you haven’t already), since it gives some good guidance about the ways of tagging different kinds of cycleway, cycle lane, footpath, etc.: highway=cycleway

Be bold, make some edits, and we can move forward from there. :-)

Thanks for your reply. Parts of the route were tagged as bicycle=yes when bicycle=designated would have been a bit more appropriate. I’ve fixed that in changeset #58891318. If the route planner is still not using the Luneside cycle path properly (and is using an up to date copy of the OSM database), you should get in touch with its authors, since the problem is then likely with the route planner.

Hi, you appear to have accidentally moved some geometry of a car park so it’s no longer correct. What were you trying to achieve with this edit? Thanks.

Sorry, this is not correct. Those ways were already tagged with bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated, which shows that they are suitable for cycling on. The principle use of those roads is as service roads, and so they should be tagged as such. Were you having routing problems with a bike routing service, or something? I’ve reverted your changes in changeset/58936176.

That’s quite convincing. Do you want to update it?

I didn’t survey that bit on foot, so I couldn’t check whether it’s a shop or an office. All the other evidence pointed to it being an office/commercial bakery without a shop front. Do you know otherwise?

No reply → removed in changeset changeset/58073483

👍

I think you need to remove name=Haverbreaks from the landuse=residential area for that bit of town, now that you’ve added the suburb node. Otherwise the name gets rendered twice. Same for other suburbs, if a name is set on the residential area.

I think a suburb node is preferred over putting a name on the landuse area, since it means the name can be placed more appropriately on the map, and complex landuses don’t need to use multipolygons.

I added to the tagging of the hotel in changeset/57899620 if you want to double-check that.

Is there really a car parts shop there? That looks like a street full of semis. What’s the name of the shop?

The tagging for the address didn't seem quite right here, so I adjusted it in changeset/57899415. Please let me know if any of that is wrong.

Please add a description to your changesets, so that other people can quickly see a summary of what’s changed. Thanks!