Bore da Männedorf

This edit appears to be fantasy, what sources were you using to believe that there is now a station at Forden?

Also there is no tunnel, the yellow walkway is clearly visible on bing imagery. What source were you using to believe there is now a tunnel?

Diolch Phil

No problem. There is an ele tag for elevation, although it is not used very often as data consumers can work that out from open elevation data.

Diolch Phil

Bore da, thank you for your edit. However 62m is rather tall for a house in that part of Wales. Are you sure it isn't meant to be addr:housenumber.

Diolch Phil

The roundabout mapping is fine.

The only suggestion I would make is that due to the new development the landuse needs to be adjusted.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Welcome to OSM. Thank you for your edit however there are a few problems. The name tag should only be used for actual names. It should not be used for descriptions, if a way is private then it should be tagged access=private.

Cheers Phil

Thank you, in many cases using motor_vehicle=private rather than simply access should work.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Access=customers would probably be better here.

Cheers Phil

Hi, am just wondering what sources you are using for this edit?

I realise that the rights of way are not fully mapped however way/377112798 is part of a a public footpath so should certainly not be tagged as access=private.

Cheers Phil

Hi Dave
This is a disused railway, where the tracks have been removed. Just wondering why have you changed it to an active railway.

Cheers Phil

Thank you, that is very true.

Much of the towpath in Cheshire is legally public footpath but the Shropshire section should be foot=permissive as you say.

Cheers Phil

Hi Ivan
Cyclists do not have a statutory right of way on canal towpaths in England and Wales. The towpaths you changed were correctly tagged as bicycle=permissive and this tag needs to be fixed.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this gate being access=private seems highly unlikely as this road is part of NCN 82 so walkers and cyclists are obviously allowed through.

It appears on OS opendata as a public road and my gut reaction is simply a gated road.

What sources are you using to believe that the road is private?

Cheers Phil

Hi, please could you add meaningful changeset comment that describe what you are aiming to achieve. Details tells me nothing.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Are you sure that node/1387451062/history is really noexit?

A note appeared here which suggests there is a footpath link here, which is normal when a road is cut in this way.

I have added the footpath however it would be useful if you could confirm.

Cheers Phil

As OSM started in the UK and OSM road types are based on UK road types you could argue other countries do not conform with the original OSM definition. France is the odd one as they had a trunk road network (route nationale) similar to the UK until departmentalisation in the 90s.

However the section north of the A47 cannot be secondary, unless it is a B road. According to OS Opendata Roads it is an A road and has the ref A6030 so in OSM UK terms that translates to primary.

However in OSM we follow the on the ground rule, so base classification on the signs.

Mapillary dates from 2017 and at the time the signs were green, indicating trunk in OSM terms
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Uo05-VKcBFABPVwqO3U9FA
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/xj_WWQPgn6X6749jBKy5ZQ

However it could well be that these signs have been changed. It is obviously a shorter route than the 'promoted' trunk route so the city council could well want to discourage its use by through traffic so it is possible it is even tertiary. However based on current information it is certainly not secondary, I would go with primary unless the signs are white and totally absent of numbers.

A new mapillary sequence would be useful here :)

Cheers Phil

Are you sure about this edit.

According to mapillary the signs along Victoria Road East are green, therefore trunk.

However if was an A road, and not trunk, then it would be primary. A secondary road would have a B reference.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your edit. Just one small thing to comment on is that you should not repeat the address in the housename. That field is for houses which have names and should be blank in this case.

Cheers Phil

Mapper has yet to respond, however reverting until an accurate survey can be carried out.

This appears to be another inaccurate edit, the actual points are visible on imagery however you have not used that information.

I suspect that your edits are part of an organised edit, who is organising it and for what purpose? Please read and comply with https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

Cheers Phil

Again what is the actual source of the data you have used for this edit?

Did you drive this road? You have mapped way/885928005 as being 30 mph however aerial imagery, presence of a school and traffic calming suggests otherwise. I would suggest that some of this section is in fact 20 mph.

Cheers Phil