I note one of your recent changes has been completely reverted (not by me!).

It would be better to explain your ideas/motivations on talk-gb mailing list -- then you will get a general range of opinions. E.g. using the duck test, etc.

Well it could have been number, rather than name?

Is way/337967806 really called "57"

Maybe you could try adjusting your imagery offset to match what's already mapped.

This area has been carefully mapped -- and you've just drawn a driveway straight through a building!

I think it would have been better to merge the footpath with the start of the service road, rather than having 2 highways on top of each other.

Road probably doesn't go throught the building.

This looks wrong - the road now goes straight through a pedestrian crossing island. What was the original problem?

At least the Baldwin Street "path" is an exclusive cycle path, pavement is separate and marked (probably) as sidewalk on the road. A quick Google will help you there. As for your other changes in and around Bristol I'll have a look in due course and ensure that what's on the ground is what's mapped.

Did you survey any of your changes - or are you making assumptions?

You've reclassified some major new cycling infrastructure as path - this probably needs to be reverted.

Are you sure Wikipedia licence is compatible with OSM?

Actually it looks like you added building:part items -- but didn't put a building around them. E.g. the diagonal ones NE of the church. Strangely, OSM map renders them -- but maybe other renderers won't? Not sure how that affects 3D stuff.

You can't use Google Earth to edit OSM -- and you/Licence Working Group would have to remove all edits using it.

Luckily "Maxar Premium Imagery" shows new configuration of the building - I've tweaked it to use that.

I have raised a ticket https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17802 -- if I filter out building:part items they still hide the real building (presumably underneath).

I've raised a ticket https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17802

You deleted a building and its associated address information -- could you please add it back as soon as possible -- if it's too difficult I can revert it all for you.

Needs a building=yes and an outline.

Most of the buildings need a "building=yes" tag

Buildings have been deleted and replaced with building:part -- can you please fix urgently. Also outlines now don't seem to correspond to ESRI clarity -- buildings are too big -- looks like you are drawing into the shadow somehow.

You've deleted a large chunk of a building - could you please fix it - or if you can't I can easily revert the changeset.