@luca sski

The untagged ways are a part of the relation which you sent, which renders everything inside the untagged ways as a wooded area. I'm not sure as to why Wulfmorn did not use separate ways and areas for this, though. Multiple untagged ways and a relation seem unnecessary for something which could be done in multiple areas.

A walk from Africa to Europe? Impressive.

Nonetheless:

- What's the source for residential areas like way/1144475742? It isn't very clear from aerial imagery.
- Why is the boundary box so big? Surely this could've been done through smaller changesets. It is good practice to add objects within a close distance of one another in one changeset and objects within a close distance of one another in another changeset (osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets). Also, this can fall under the definition of a mechanical changeset (osm.wiki/Automated_edits).

Please provide an explanation for the above. It'll be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,
yasslay

Upon further investigation of some of the ways included in this changeset (in particular, the UK), I found that the warnings shown in the changeset box above were because of the user dragging roads together and just ruining the geometry of the ways. It’s hard to describe, but you can check my most recent changesets to get more of an idea of what happened. I hope this helps.

What has been done to way/337060413 is OBVIOUS vandalism. Reverting immediately.

It's alright, I'll add it it back in. No problem!

Hello!

Why did you delete the junction name area for the roundabout?

Kind regards,
yasslay

Smaller changesets, please!

Please make your changesets smaller, please...

I've reviewed the changeset and the quality of the buildings they've added are awful. None of them are properly mapped and they don't reflect their real world shape whatsoever. For example, this house in Wales (way/1130915290) and others like it are mapped awfully. This needs to be addressed immediately and other mechanical edits like it.

Apologies, the note was cut off for no apparent reason. For those wondering, I'm inviting whoever wishes to review this changeset to give their take on the name I've assigned the A2 here and whether or not it is suitable.

I see what you mean. I suppose at this point that the best thing for us to do is guess; and I think you made a good call here by changing the tagging of the road here. I agree with you on that it's the A28; it seems unlikely that this is otherwise, especially considering how the other roads link into this section road. Thanks a ton for doing this.

Kind regards and happy mapping,
yasslay

Thanks!

Hello!

I noticed that you changed an unnamed tertiary road to a primary road (tagged as trunk under OSM guidelines) as part of the A28. I'm pretty sure this part of the road here isn't considered to be part of the A28 when taking into account that a (stub of a) residential road from the current Saxon Fields development connects onto the road in question here.

I haven't surveyed the location recently, but I know there's some signage pointing to the road being the A28, but this is only coming off of the A2, and from what I can remember there's a non-primary road sign approaching the junction after turning off of the A2.

I won't touch the road for now until I come to a conclusion on what the road should be tagged as from the discussion here.

If you're wondering, this is the road I'm talking about:
way/154350709

Kind regards and happy mapping,
yasslay

You'e welcome! Don't worry too much about this, we all make mistakes at some point. Happy mapping, and merry Christmas!

Kind regards,
yasslay

Hello.

I have reverted part of the changeset in changeset/130267060#map=15/52.3753/-2.4266 where I removed the incorrect bridge tagging you added to part of Cleobury Road.

I also looked at the streams the A4117 crosses, but there's no physical evidence of any bridges there.

If you can provide a survey or piece of evidence which backs up the existence of a bridge along the route, I'll be happy to add it in for you.

Kind regards,
yasslay

Forgot to mention it in the changeset description, but I also fixed the maxspeed:type=* tags and specified the surface type and smoothness of the road.

Hello!

I left this as a note earlier, but I've decided to leave a comment here instead.

Is the name 'Golden Valley Bypass' really the name of the A40 here? OS data suggests that this isn't the case and that the name isn't really what it has been tagged as in the changeset.

I know that there's a suburb (node/5628763205#map=14/51.8971/-2.1360) named Golden Valley which the A40 does bypass, but it seems unlikely that this is case where the name has been applied elsewhere in the changeset.

Kind regards,
yasslay

Hello!

I noticed this and a few other changesets changing the tagging of busways (not guided busways) to highway=service and it being reverted to tags such as highway=secondary.

I believe that the convention (from what I can understand) is to tag them as highway=service, access=no and bus=designated. If other types of vehicles, e.g. bicycles are permitted, then you would tag it as bicycle=yes.

I hope this helps with clearing anything up.

Kind regards,
yasslay

Hello!

Why did you make this part of the Fosse Way one way? This isn't reflected on satellite imagery, please explain why you changed it to be like this.

Kind regards,
yasslay

Also moved the retail landuse for the town centre to not go over the post office, as per the wiki guidelines.