You updated the note on node/282651672 , however in this change set you left the road after the end of motorway restrictions as motorway_link , surely this must be trunk_link . If motorway restrictions ended near the roundabout it wouldn't be an issue but this is over 350m of road.
Also surely the limit of this is still 70mph since it is a sliproad to a dual carriageway (which also happens to be a motorway).

Hi Finn,
I am wondering why you have changed the highway type of ship street?
Currently there is a TRO order on Ship Street (and almost all the other roads in the Laines) to prohibit motor vehicles except for access. The wiki suggest that this should be highway=pedestrian with motor_vehicle=destination
highway=pedestrian
highway=living_street
should be only used on residential streets that are designed primarily for NMUs with some motor vehicular access to properties.

Thanks for the clarification. Its a mystery to me how the routing engines work. They all use different measurements for different modes of transports, of which relations might have an impact.
I've adjusted the downs link relation to use the path beside the bypass, however I've kept the cycle route relation on Castle Lane. I've also added tags on Castle Lane to show that it doesn't have a pavement and its narrow, this may make routers avoid it. I've also changed the pavement into a "footway" rather than "path" as that implies it is designed for foot traffic.

Due to no response in 2 weeks I'll change the bridleway back to how it was

Hi Nick,
I am wondering what makes this alternative route the preferred route?
Also the downs link shouldn't be name=Downs Link since "Downs link" is the name of the route rather than the physical way, however this seems to of plagued the Downs Link too much already. If this is now the official route of the downs link, the downs link relation should be changed to reflect its new route. Also does the path beside the bypass allow cycles or horses too?
Kind Regards,
Thomas

Noted,
I only put them on where it can be seen from bing imagery or if hidden under canopy I put them on as an assumption. In future I'll only put them on when its clear from imagery that there is a fence there.
Not all of these are fences as you say, however Horsham has been mapped in a similar way so assumed that it is okay to do this, most of the boundaries will be fences, although some may be within hedges.

Hi Steve,
No worries at all,
Renders show all sorts of paths in different ways, and most renders don't bother showing a path's legal designation (I dislike how OSM & the cycle maps show them too). However the map should reflect what is on the ground rather than what we call "tagging for the renderer". There are renderers that do show PRoWs such as this one: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16&lat=50.9946&lon=-0.2025
Also checking OS maps (can be done for free when using Bing Maps) or download the PRoW KLM/GPX from http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/ , these then can be opened in Google Earth to ensure that your routes are on PRoWs that permit bicycles.

I see you have changed the bridleway beside the new Bypass to a cycleway. I will admit it is a bit odd that they designated and signed it as a bridleway instead of of a shared foot/cycle way. but surely highway=bridleway is more correct that highway=cycleway.

Sorry, my bad.

I see you have changed the bridleway beside the new Bypass to a cycleway. I will admit it is a bit odd that they designated and signed it as a bridleway instead of of a shared foot/cycle way. but surely highway=bridleway is more correct that highway=cycleway

Hi Midsussexcyclist.
Just so you are aware, a legal bridleway doesn't have to be tagged as highway=bridleway. They can be highway=track or highway=service (as well as other highway types) if they better fit those descriptions.
Generally speaking if the way is used by motor vehicles for access and unpaved it would normally be tagged as highway=track, and if it was paved as highway=service. Out of the two bridleways you edited here from Bing I'd agree the northern one is more likely to be highway=bridleway however the southern one does appear to be used by motor vehicles, and may even be paved. so these are better off being highway=track or service.
osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom

Kind Regards,
Thomas

Hi Peter
The crossing was mapped correctly before the change.
highway=traffic%20signals?uselang=en-GB#Traffic_signals_for_pedestrians
If you wish to add the traffic signals as separate nodes on the stop lines as highway=traffic_signals then you can (although this isn't standard practice on crossing not associated with a junction). Since it is a traffic light controlled crossing it should be mapped as highway=crossing & crossing=traffic_signals

Kind Regards,
Thomas

I have no problems with that. If you can do it without effecting other parts of the changeset.

Kind Regards,
Thomas

The deleted ways were highway areas, not the actual highway way.

The parts of the highway areas that I removed were on their own (i.e. no other connecting road or track was mapped in that way), or the area mapped as a "track" was actually just the yard of a farm.
such as: way/260473509#map=18/53.18067/-0.05398

I can't remember removing any grass, but likely was no longer grass from the most recent imagery (most of these land area were mapped in 2013)

hope this clears things up

100 Million! WOOOO!!!

So different highway types imply different access by default. For example a motorway or motorway_link will only suggest access for motor vehicles and no other means of transport. A pedestrian road will only suggest access for foot and no other means unless explicitly added (like "bicycle=yes")
Likewise highway=bridleway will allow access by default only to foot,bicycle&horse.

Access=no on a highway should only be used if the road or path is legally closed (for a substantial period of time)
Also I believe that the bridge on Lewes' Highstreet does allow some vehicles with conditional access, although from memory the signage is very inconstant.

Why have you tagged the old High Street Bridge over the River ouse as access=no?

Please stop mapping Valley Gardens as the old layout. The current layout has been built over the past few years, finally opening fully last Summer/Autumn. I have reverted this change set again so the map is now correct. Do not make any changes to it without up to date information, preferably on the ground survey.
Here is my most recent recorded evidence of the layout (most from Aug/Sep 2020)
https://youtu.be/7A0DnMHOTB4
I have raised this with the data working group, I'd suggest to stop eroding your creditability and only edit things that you have proof of.

I've reverted the changeset as I don't expect you know how revert it

You do know that you have reverted the road layout to what is was months ago. The new layout has been operating for a while now. Please revert changeset since the map is now showing the completely wrong layout including parallel bus only roads that have never existed. Before changing road layouts drastically, its better to do a on the ground survey, if not possible the least you could of done is looked at multiple imagery sources or searched on the internet about it.