Where sidewalks were tagged with sidewalk:both=separate, please could you replace with sidewalk:left=separate rather than when splitting sidewalk=separate? I've spent quite a lot of time checking and changing sidewalk=separate tags to sidewalk:$side=separate.

I've fixed the separate sidewalk tagging here in changeset/148278957

Please could you explain why this now has access=no? Current tagging allows only motor vehicles to reach a destination, but prohibits pedestrians and cyclists (despite being explicitly signed for contraflow cycling).

Mis-tagging as a highway=living_street (not from your edit) fixed in changeset/148278156

Please could you explain what your are trying to achieve here? Adding only name=강남쩜오 to a node where two roads intersect is unlikely do anything useful.

Please don't add fiction to the map. Please don't delete POIs without an explanation. Please use meaningful changeset comments. (Reverted, obviously)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

A highway=pedestrian area shouldn't need a foot=yes tag, as that is implicit.

If you are having problems with routing software failing to route across the pedestrian area, this may be because some routers do not work very well with pedestrian areas.

It might be worth adding a highway=footway way from the pedestrian crossing of North Street by the roundabout to the station entrance. If you would like any help with this, please let me know.

For more information about implied access tags, see:
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

I wasn't aware that age or incompleteness were criteria for summary deletion.

Even if they were, mass deletion of these objects is not what a changeset comment of "Corrected tag issues around Ingatestone" suggests.

The area:highway polygons surrounding the highway lines are different, since they represent different things about the roads. You may consider them unnecessary duplication, but nobody is forcing anyone else to process geometries or tags for which they have no use.

What was "incorrect" about the area:highway=* polygons which justified their outright deletion? T
I can see that there were some redundant area=yes tags which should have been deleted, but what was wrong with the geometries?

Thanks. I see from the example you gave the the Crawley endpoint is the place=town node for Crawley, located in Southgate Playing Field (presumably the approximate geometric centre of the town).
node/17722928

Oddly, Metrobus's planner seems happy to use a start point in the middle of playing fields, but declines to produce a route unless the end point is changed to Horsham Station (Stop K) or Horsham Station (Stop L).

It might be worth raising this with Metrobus, as it is possible that moving the railway station node will not solve the problem. Even if it does solve it, it is also likely that someone will move it back to its original position.

If you don't have any luck with Metrobus support, you could try asking for help at https://community.openstreetmap.org/

What was the journey planning problem caused by the railway station node being roughly in the centre of the station? Is this related to a particular app or website?

How does adding a non-existent section of dual carriageway "align" the geometry of the junction?

Unless TfL have installed a physical barrier between carriageways very recently, the only separation between the traffic island at the junction with Woolwich New Road and the crossing island at the traffic lights is by painted road markings.

Is there a TomTom originated MapRoulette challenge actually asking users to tag for the router by adding dual carriageways where no physical separation exists?

osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway
dual_carriageway=yes#Bad_mapping

Please don't tag for the renderer

I see that you have changed the address of your business, but the POI is still located in Whitechapel High Street. Would you like it moved to a location which matches the new address?

Please don't tag for the renderer.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Do you know if the Castle Baynard Street tunnel on C3 has reopened yet?

Oh, I see.I think it's one of the more questionable "features" of the iD editor, where I tries to protect the names of objects where wiki tags are present.

Please could you explain the rationale for changing the name of a railway line to "Chatham Main Line", but removing the wikidata and wikipedia tags for Chatham Main Line?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding more public rights of way to the map.

You may, or may not, find this online tool useful for mapping and tagging PRoWs in your area.
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/sevenoaks/sevenoaks-rural/

You don't really need to add the note or bicycle and horse tags, as a public footpath correctly tagged as highway=footway + designation=public_footpath is already pedestrian only for routing purposes. If people are riding horses or bicycles across the golf course, it is unlikely to be because OSM-based routing software sent them that way.

If it had been tagged as highway=path, then you might have needed horse=no and bicycle=no

osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

Thanks for spotting this. I think the routing problem was caused by the extension of the service road through through a non-existent gate onto Brookscroft Road.

I've tweaked this a little, reinstating the service road as a dead-end parking aisle, terminating on a noexit=yes node.

changeset/147207163