Hi Chris, I see you have added temporary closure tags for the cycle path as it is undergoing maintaince. However I have never seen those tags been used before. Usually conditional access tags are used when a way is closed for maintance. For example access:conditional = no@(2021 March 01 - 2021 June 30)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105217294

Was an edit of this size put to the community?
I'd agree with limes11 and say that "British Empire" isn't suitable since its a defunct term and OSM is meant to show how the world is more or less at the current time, so adding this is of no benefit unlike the NATO one you also added.

I commented on one of your recent changesets but no reply. But again on this changeset you have put what seems to be a prow_ref as a highway_authority_ref instead. Is this correct or supposed to be prow_ref? I can correct these if you like.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104400147

Hi NetWisdom, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I see that in this changeset you added the name of the route to the footpath.
Because Viking Way is a route rather than a path name it is mapped as a relation (a relation contains multiple ways). The Viking Way relation contains these paths already, although it doesn't render the name on the map it is correctly mapped already. For this reason I'm going to remove the name from the way.
This is an easy mistake to make, and I made it before when I was new too.
You can see the relation here relation/404079
Some maps show these relations such as https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=14!53.1918!-0.5374

Kind Regards,
Thomas

Reverted this and nearby changesets in changeset/104414112 due to lack of reply

What is the E-W road being constructed as? I'd presume at least tertiary rather than unclassified.
Also I'd guess you watched the video by jen which really out to be tagged as the source of the changeset. But also in that video it shows that the roundabout isn't open (i.e. you cannot make any movement other than ahead) while this change (or maybe the one before it) shows that it is possible to go all the way around the roundabout.

What date is your source from for this edit and the other edits on the A27 in the vicinity?

I propose this changeset to be reverted.
The only traffic restrictions here is "no right turn", and not "ahead only". The deleted relation/4609099 was correct

Hi Belseybob,

I have some things to point out with this changeset.
On way/560312432 (along with others) you have added a tag for "highway:category:pl" which is only used for highways in Poland, why has this been added to this highway? Also a "highway_authority_ref" which is usually used for internal references for roads, however the value of "BY373" suggests that it is a byway number so should be prow_ref=BY373 instead

"highway_authority_ref" has also appeared to be used on other PRoWs such as footpath way/852990249
Also on these footpaths you added bicycle=no and horse=no , are these explicitly signed or assumed? Public Footpath != no bicycles or horses.

Just saw the first message you sent. I understand now why you want to keep it for now. However for your awareness it isn't mapped in the correct place for the pedestrian surface. If using Bing it need an offset of (4.63; -2.84) at Hove Lawns and (4.48; -2.24) at the Aquarium.

I removed the retail area since the area is covers is not retail. A very small amount of of it actually retail and can be mapped case by case where it is a retail area. The retail area seems to be mostly pedestrian surface

I've had a look at mapillary and there doesn't appear to be a right turn or u-turn restriction here.
This just seems like a place where doing a right turn/u-turn is very unlikely and such the junction isn't designed for it, rather than it being explicitly not allowed

Is the ban on bicycles and horses sign posted, or is just physically unsuitable for bicycles? If it isn't sign posted as bicycles & horses banned then surface & smoothness tags should be used instead of bicycles/horse tags.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102811786

Can you stop changing the speed limits at Holdingham, this is now the second time I've had to change it back after you.
There are notes attached to the ways as well as a very clear comment on the changeset to what is happening.

Okay. Fair enough.
However I believe that building=hospital or building=yes should still be used as well as abandoned:building=hospital.
Looking at the surrounding area, wherever abandoned:building has been used, a building tag has also been present (if the building is still a building) https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/15WB
. Some of these abandoned buildings don't warrant a building tag because they are missing roofs and walls, however the majority of these structures are very much buildings.

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.