On the wiki, service should be used when it serves properties (and a few other cases like parking & laybys), such in this case these roads serve a few houses and farms as well as fields. Track should only be used when it is only access to fields. Also generally speaking "service" are paved while tracks are usually unpaved, although in some circumstances "track" may be paved.

In general for the UK, roads that are adopted and paved are unclassified and above, and unadopted roads in a rural environment are usually only service or track.

highway=track

The roads between Isacc's Lane and Rocky Lane are better suited as highway=service rather than track since these roads serve properties & homes. Track should be used when its purpose is to access land around it such as crop fields

In this changeset you have set access tags to "no" for some roundabouts & roads. To set something to "no" that mode of transport has to be explictly banned (usually by signs), this isn't the case in these changes. While the roundabouts and roads may be unsuitable for pedestrians, a router wouldn't choose them unless there were no better alternative because most routers will assume trunk & primary roads to not be suitable for pedestrians unless there is a sidewalk tag or low speed limit. I've changed these back to not specify any foot access
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106538187

Congrats on finishing mapping every house in Burgess Hill!

Some of these old railways would be better tagged as railway=razed rather than abandoned, including WAY: 937109313 which you changed from razed to abandoned although it seems there is no evidence on the ground of the former railway
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105429088

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.