Hi, the bottom left roundabout junctions are still shown as under construction, is that an omission or are these junctions still blocked?

Thanks, I've fixed the highway tag. I meant to tag it as "unclassified" (I know, strange typo) like a nearby Lower Downs Slade road but I don't mind having them both changed to residential.

way/638831350 is visible in Esri World Imagery. Code-Point Open has a postcode at that location, indicating there should be a building there. Sizes of both buildings look correct to me. The lower one is likely not rectangular but the imagery is not very clear there.

I'm afraid this feature has not yet been deployed on the osm website. Fortunately, the code is already in the repository: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/commit/5935bea3692e631dad4cb70dbdc33660105c7d00 and it should be included in a new release which is due on Friday: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3442

Thank you for doing that. Indeed the alignment of other objects is not great. Would it be possible for you go through them and fix the worst offenders? Roundabouts are the most important as they are often used as reference points.

Hi Mike, please align your imagery to gps traces before moving objects. For example, Marlow Road was previously aligned and is now shifted west. Some imagery sets (eg esri clarity) seem to be better aligned by default.

I like to keep building and company names separate, unless they are strongly tied to each other - my personal preference, others may disagree. In the past office POIs were not rendered so people worked it around by naming buildings after companies occupying them. In this case both conventions overlap, so I am OK with your solution.

Reverted in #62668940.

Is this correct? There are already addresses (57-63) here, which seem to be consistent with other buildings.

Simply tagging them as access=private would do the job. If there are any gates or barriers they could be added too. Pretty much all routing software is aware of them, otherwise it would be unusable.

Hi Samuel, was there anything wrong with these roads? If they're private simply tag them as such, don't delete them.

Hi, thank you for doing this. For this kind of work (changing tags of multiple objects at once, copying tags from one object to another, e.g. address to house, splitting buildings into parts) I strongly recommend you to look into JOSM. It's less intuitive but it makes certain tasks much easier than iD.

Is Owlstone Medical Ltd an owner and a sole occupant of these buildings? Otherwise it is IMHO better to keep the building and the company separate.

Is this really a service road? There are some properties visible on aerials. Perhaps setting a width tag would be a better choice.

Is a bulk revert planned or should I revert the changesets one by one?

All changes in Bar Hill by this user should be reverted asap. I would advise a temporary ban to be placed on the user as well before more damage is done.

Why not simply remove or edit description tags? There is nothing to suggest these POIs were wrong. Can you bring them back?

Hi, can you comment more on the current status, please. Were these roads under construction, or planned at all, were they incorrect, temporary?
If I remember correctly, there are already some houses built there, so I would expect some residential roads, possibly under construction, to exist.

Hi Dan, thank you for your contributions. Good stuff. Some advices, I hope you don't mind: Please be careful when panning the view in the iD editor. It is *very* easy to accidentaly drag a node instead. Also, when you draw buildings, do try and "square" them afterwards (context menu or an "s" key).

This changeset has been reverted in
changeset/58107526

The Houghton street has been manually corrected in changeset/58085679

I just noticed it is your first changeset and you have requested a review. Sorry for the harsh feedback and I hope it will not discourage you from further contributions.

Nevertheless there are some issues with this changeset that should be resolved and I think the best way of doing it is to revert it and reapply the part that is useful.