Hi, I see you have added one-way tags to some service roads. This road is a dead end so shouldn't be possible to be one-way. What are you trying to achieve with these edits?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131972729

Thanks for the clarification

Does this wall prevent only vehicles from crossing over the bridge, or can pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders still pass?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131146280

Is this closure including pedestrians, bicycles & horses? Or is it just for motor vehicles?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130217122

Changeset reverted in 129675091

Changeset reverted in 129675091

Changeset reverted in 129675091

Hi Anonymous 10.
I've reverted these changes as Western Road is correct.
Western Road and The section of dyke road that you changed is a one-way street with a contraflow bus lane (which also allows taxis & bicycles). The tags on the road were correct before

No worries. I've updated it.

Hi bobstock. I see on this change you said that this crossing has an island, however on bing there is no island to be seen. please confirm
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128179079

I see you have changed some of the PRoW tags and removed a section of it.
This now means that the PRoW doesn't connect onto anything. On East Sussex's Website it shows that PRoW heads straight along the straight edge of the woods last Newelm and connects onto Firle Bostal. Whilst OSM previously showed the PRoW going around the northern side of the woods, with ESCC's map showing a bridge as part of the PRoW network on the Northern side of the woods.

Surely one way through here is passable, either around the north side of the woods or southern side. Regardless one of the ways ought to be kept on the map, either the legal line to the south and/or the previously off-course route on the northern side.

Hi Sagajjaq. I see that in this changeset you change a path to a residential road. Looking on Bing this does appear to be a footpath and not accessible to motor vehicles. Can you please confirm that this is a road and not a path.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127078169

Hi Higgo12345, welcome to Open Street Map. In the two edits you made what are you trying to map? It appears you have tried to add some scrub within the woods as well as a piece of coastline. None of this appears to reflect what is showing on areal imagery. If you could let me know what you are trying to do and I'll see what I can do to assist you.
Kind Regards,
Thomas
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127095330

Yeah the motor vehicle ban is still time related. I just couldn't be bothered to search how to do conditional restrictions.
Also there was a right turn ban out of Grantham Road onto Ditchling road, but now its oneway with a cycle contraflow, but no markings on the cycle contraflow require cyclists to turn left so I believe that legally you have to turn left whilst using the contraflow, but due to lack of markings I removed the banned turn.
Though if there are now markings there or signage feel free to add the restriction again.

Hi Jez, I've seen you have added some of the bike hangers in Brighton and tagged them as "amenity=bicycle_repair_station" due to lack of suitable other tags.

bicycle_repair_station is not a good idea for the bicycle hangers as these are usually stands which have bicycle related tools such as Allen Keys, screwdrivers, pumps etc.

The best way to tag these IMO would be
"amenity=bicycle_parking" with "access=permit" along with operator & fee as applicable tags.
See amenity=bicycle_parking for more information.

I believe that it is open and accessible. But I'll go and take a look next time I'm in the city centre (I was there 12 hours ago as it happened!)

I've seen you have been adding no bicycle & horse tags to public footpaths. Whilst there may not be a right to use these modes of transport on these ways, it should not be marked as "no" unless there are signs that say there is no cycling or horse riding. Also on this change set on way/126219338, this is legally a public highway, so all modes of transport are legally allowed to use it, from bicycles to lorries, although it may be unsuitable for larger vehicles to due useable width & surface. But on way/126219338 you added no tags for bicycles are horses which is totally wrong as they are allowed here.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126219338

I've seen you have been adding no bicycle & horse tags to public footpaths. Whilst there may not be a right to use these modes of transport on these ways, it should not be marked as "no" unless there are signs that say there is no cycling or horse riding. Also on this change set on way/126219338, this is legally a public highway, so all modes of transport are legally allowed to use it, from bicycles to lorries, although it may be unsuitable for larger vehicles to due useable width & surface. But on way/126219338 you added no tags for bicycles are horses which is totally wrong as they are allowed here.

I've seen you have been adding no bicycle & horse tags to public footpaths. Whilst there may not be a right to use these modes of transport on these ways, it should not be marked as "no" unless there are signs that say there is no cycling or horse riding. Also on this change set on way/126219338, this is legally a public highway, so all modes of transport are legally allowed to use it, from bicycles to lorries, although it may be unsuitable for larger vehicles to due useable width & surface. But on way/126219338 you added no tags for bicycles are horses which is totally wrong as they are allowed here.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126219338

I can't remember that one & haven't been in that area since 2020 before I started my camera achieve.