Hi doublah,
I am asking if it is okay to revert this changeset.

According to the wiki ( abandoned=*: )
when tagging buildings that are abandoned, the following tags should be present.
building=yes | abandoned=yes (although type of building can be used)
old_name=%former name%
.|||
Prior to your changeset these tags were present and correct. Since you have edited it, it only has two tags (adandoned:building=hospital && area=yes) it is now incorrect since the building is still there (so needs building=yes)
As such I propose that this changeset is reverted to what is was previously. Please confirm that it is okay to revert in the next few days please.
Kind regards,
Thomas

Does this turn ban also apply to bicycles?

Speed limits were reduced last month. Please use up to date information when making changes, and look at the history of the things you are changing.

I've passed through this underpass before. There is a raised cycle/foot way on the southern side of the underpass and in the same underpass there is a track (it may be paved, can't remember). There however was a barrier on the northern side of the underpass for the track.
Personally, I think the "path" should be mapped as a track, no access restrictions however a barrier on a node to the north barring vehicles (or all) access.

You have used adandoned:highway which suggests that the old road has "fallen into serious disrepair and which could only be put back into operation with expensive effort. Such features will still have some physical form reflective of their former use visible in the landscape."

However from as far as I am aware the old flyover has been removed with little left to show that it was ever there, for this reason it should be demolished:highway
This will ensure that those using mapping in the future will not remap it if it appears on layer sources.

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!!!