I also noticed this changed cycleway:both to shared, where the correct value is shared_lane according to cycleway=*

I've noticed that this edit removed cycleway:both:lane=pictogram that I had surveyed with StreetComplete - is there a reason for this? I've noticed this in other edits eg changeset/132980539

Whilst cycling through here, I noticed that the proposed one way has now been introduced

This change set split a building in half way/960687169

Could you please fix this

Which was the other building? As for this one that tag was added in a different change set changeset/124256414

When I surveyed here I don't recall seeing a house number but if in doubt I could remove it and survey again

When making these changes did you connect the path into Baxendale Street Open Space with Columbia Rd? The only entrance and exit for the park is on Baxendale Street and I've corrected this in changeset/124438718

Thank you for the detail explanation, that makes sense and I didn't know historical context behind all this. I shall close my note accordingly

I've recently done some ground surveys of the cycle lanes on Victoria Park Road and I have some questions as to how this is mapped.

Whilst doing a StreetComplete survey I saw that there is a one way dashed cycle lane on Victoria Park Road. However way/294423308 is a separate bidirectional cycle lane that is shared with pedestrians.

I couldn't see anything to indicate that the pavement is shared with cyclists, nor that cyclists can cycle in both directions. A photo of the road is attached to this note
note/3204456

Am I correct in assuming that the LCN relation needs to be updated to follow the cycle path on the road way and the cycle path needs to be removed from the pavement way?

The barriers that you placed in London Fields appear to be in the wrong place. You added them to a dirt part where I think you meant to place them on the road, could you please review this. I created two notes with photos

note/3265630
note/3265631

Thank you for the links to the discussion. I've fixed the tagging on this park and will start gradually working my way through those edits to revert however it may take me several months on my own.

Thank you for your feedback on this. The instructions for the MapRoulette task said "If the surrounding park isn't mapped, consider adding it, see leisure=park and landuse=recreation_ground", which I interpreted to mean that if the park also contained recreation activities ie playgrounds, sport pitch to use both tags.

I've since read this wiki entry landuse=recreation_ground that states:

"in many cases area is both recreation ground and a park. In such cases usual tagging is to add just leisure=park"

From this I understand that just the tag leisure=park is sufficient, however would it be possible to get clearer guidance on the wiki if you shouldn't use both tags.

Over the months I've been working on this challenge, I would have added this tag to both new and existing tags, and the change sets would have included other additions including playgrounds and sport pitches.

Has the deleted relation for the State Library of New South Wales been replaced with anything? At the moment I can't see anything tagged with amenity=library so this needs to be applied to the buildings or a new relation created

Thank you for the detailed explanation, and happy to defer to you as how the relationship is best modelled.

No, these were separate and below it so I may have tagged the level wrong

Sure I have removed the incorrect value for diet:vegan

I get what you mean, what was I was trying to capture is there is a large roof and the building underneath it is only doesn't take up the full width as you can see in these pictures https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Killara+station&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image

Looking through my photos there is a locked gate but it's not clear from the limited pictures I took where the path passes through the ruins. Perhaps it's best I just leave the path with the fixme as I am no longer in Norfolk to resurvey the path.

Thank you for adding these paths, were really handy during a recent trip! When you surveyed this a decade ago were you able to walk through the inside of the church ruins? I was only able to walk around them

This change set has now been reverted and I've added the second identifier to the double mailbox after cross checking my photos changeset/104469432

Well spotted on this, I've reviewed my photos from that survey and I've accidently merged N1 61 with the double. I can revert this next week or feel free to do so on my behalf.