Hi Derick.
Mapping sidewalks as separate ways is an approved proposal giving it the highest status of legitimacy in this community. Sidewalks do not have to be separated from the highway to be mapped as a separate way. As the wiki states, a sidewalk mapped as a separate way is a refinement of footway tags. Allowing more detail to be added than is possible with highway tags alone. I would suggest you have a read of osm.wiki/Sidewalks before continuing. If you wish to discuss the mapping of sidewalks I would suggestion you do so on the forums as there is a ongoing conversation.

If you do choose to remove these sidewalks then I have to agree with rskedgell that it cannot be described as anything other than vandalism. These sidewalks are perfectly acceptable and in many ways preferable to tags on the highway.

Kind regards,
Kits

ok i've just fixed it

Hi there Ben,
You should reuse building ways whenever possible rather than deleting and creating a new one in its place to maintain the history
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161176329

Hi there JP,
Welcome to OSM.
Unfortunately Royal Mail's find a postcode service's terms and conditions is not compatible with OSM's license and as such it cannot be used as a source when mapping.

With the addresses, the correct way to solve this situation is with the addr:parentstreet tag but unfortunately the web editor doesn't display a field for this tag.

I've fixed these issues for you.
Kind regards,
Kits.

to add a little extra, the bus station as a whole is defined with the amenity=bus_station area. I believe there is also a relation that can be used to hard link everything together but i dont believe i've used it before.

Hi there, I'm reverting this. The public_transport=platform node represents a bus stand not a bus stop or station. This station has 12 stands. The public_transport=platform node should be placed at the location people wait to board the bus. each platform can optionally have a corresponding public_transport=stop_position node that is placed where the bus stops on the highway. the name of both nodes should match. You can use Merthyr bus station as an example if you like, osm.org/edit#map=20/51.7443294/-3.3797592. Its is complete with bus routes.

Kind regards,
Kits

changeset/160932201

Hi, I've reverted this because it is the incorrect usage for highway=motorway_junction. This type of node is used to make a motorway exit not entrance and is place as the start of a off ramp. please see the wiki for more info highway=motorway_junction

changeset/160652681

Thats a fair argument, i've gone through some recent historic satellite imagery now and i agree, a lot of what i just walked on is less then 10 years old so this makes more sense.

It does seem like a rather large oversight that they didn't build anything to span that gap when rebuilding the a465.

So I walked the stretch between Garnlydan and Brynmawr today and its odd. There are signs on nearly all the minor forks on the path but the signs are missing for all the major forks. there's even no signage at the east end nor at the ramp from the B4560 where I entered the path.

There is also a information board near the A465 highest viewpoint which has a simple map on it show amoung other things, NCN paths, it seems to show the south path of the 46 along with the 466 but not the north path.

The sign post at the viewpoint also marked as west from the viewpoint as a "local cycle route" and east as part of the "Ebbw Fach Trail" but no mention of the NCN route.

I think my original theory still stands and the north route was meant to be removed but they skipped the majority of the harder to get to signs. it also terminates literally in a garage's storage yard and doesnt really go anywhere. however since we map what's on the ground if you have no objections i'll remap it as a separate link route rather than a alt path of the main route. I think this makes more sense since it a dead end and I suspect they will remove it eventually.

I'll also look into this Ebbw Fach Trail since its seem rather extensive and well marked. the map indicates that it extends all the way down to Aberbeeg.

Hi Ceirios, You may have made a row of street lamps instead of bollards here: node/12427193541

I agree, i've created a thread here
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/residential-road-with-separated-lanes

I will admit I only surveyed the entrances to the path as I was on a motorbike at the time. Had a nose at OS maps, they have it marked as a link route rather than a full one. Next dry day we have i'll take a walk up there with the dog to make sure.

Hi there, i surveyed the cycle paths here before making the changeset on request of SomeoneElse. I could not find any signage for the north stretch when I surveyed it with the only exception being on this roundabout which I've concluded is prob a leftover sign. way/4570064

You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I am forcing my standard on this area because 80%+ of the mapping in a 2-3 miles radius around this changeset is my work so my work forms the standard of this area and I will admit I'm rather protective of it. Please understand from my prospective how rude and insulting it is to have someone come in, delete your work with no real explanation let alone a conversation. I brought up this dual carriageway in the discord, most people agree with my argument of why it should be like this. however Trigpoint has raised an counter argument which I have agreed with, being the inability to perform U-turns on this stretch. This is the kind of conversation / debate I would expect which you do not attempt, instead you invade a area, declare you know best and move on. I will apologize for the blanket reverts I've performed. My only excuse was tiredness. I stand that reverts were necessary but it should have been cherry picked. I still stand that what you have been doing in general recently is borderline vandalism. this changeset is more debatable but others are just downright wrong, you delete with no concern for the detail you throw away and I'm hoping going forward you will be more aware of your actions.

I'm reverting this. Please go and discuss stuff like this before making drastic changes. You cant just stroll into an area and force your standards upon everyone else. This is getting silly. if you haven't noticed I've micro mapped this entire town in high detail. There are 4 islands on this road, it is acceptable to map a island are a duel carriageway. Instead of having it merge and split 4 times I kept it as one chunk of duel carriageway which I think is an acceptable compromise between accuracy and practicality. What you've been doing lately is borderline vandalism, please stop it.

changeset/160265511

*guy who imported power lines in this area. XD I do check each line as I import them but when you got thousands of poles to do you cant spend too much time on each so they are meant to be rough and people can improve the accuracy later.

I have started a thread of the forums to discuss this issue more publicly https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/roundabout-speed-limits

Nathan can you point be to the public discussion you had before deciding to make these blanket decisions? personally, I see no benefit to declaring a roundabout to be separate from the road it sits on. it would be suicidal to attempt a roundabout at 60 or 70 mph. and there no official consensus since presumably it is common sense to say a roundabout adopts the speed limit of the road it sits on. the only difference is that the speed limit data becomes noisier and less appealing to consumers.

Hi there, you appear to have incorrectly moved this power pole node/12148557486
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159902042

Multiple junctions have had detail deleted here for no reason. the worst example us probably way/24384371
here you deleted 2 carriageways and 3 islands and replaced them with a single node. there is no reason to delete detail like this. there is no benefit. it is less accurate than before.