Hi Zero, you have added foot & horse access tags onto Friar Crescent with the value of "no". Are you sure this is correct as I don't think a residential street would ban pedestrians, nor a reason to ban horses.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112897236

Hi MacLondon,
This roundabout has recently (within the last month) been made smaller and I updated the map to reflect this using GPS traces. Could this CS be reverted to reflect the roundabouts new geometry?
Information on the scheme can be found here: https://sussex-transport.net/index.php/2021/07/20/crawleys-eastern-gateway-scheme-under-construction/
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112762505

Hi Adrion, just a heads up that when specifying destination road numbers use destination:ref:lanes instead of destination:lanes. destination:lanes should only include place destinations rather than route numbers.
Cheers, Thomas
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112563802

So Path number WSx/200 section 4 ran from Ford in a SWW direction and is not the path from Church Lane to Climping Bridge.
Public Footpaths are sometimes indistinguishable on the ground, especially when they go across fields where farming may visually remove the path. However legally the footpath is still there as such I'll add some tags onto the path to show this.
Thanks for flagging this up

Hi Mrs Meisty.
I've had a look on WSCC's website and there is no mention of a closure on this public footpath (WSx/168). What do you mean by it is "no longer available as a footpath"? Is it just overgrown/ploughed or are there notices saying it is closed?

Hi Duke_leto. Is this block effecting foot traffic, or is it designed to stop motor traffic, bicycles etc. Please add foot=yes/no or other suitable tags as applicable for this block
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111760374

Hi Dylan. For your awareness for access "designated" means that the way has been designed or designated for that mode of traffic. So here on the downs link it has been designed for bicycle traffic therefor should be "designated" instead of "yes". "yes" just means it is allowed. Routers will prefer to choose ways on routes if they are tagged as "designated" for that mode of transport over those tagged as "yes".
for more information please read access=designated
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111780456

Hi Barry.
The A272 between the A3 and A22 is a primary route. It does lack the green and yellow signage which is typically found on a primary route. However it is still classified as a primary route so is "trunk". Please see @daveemtb/diary/7808 which is a note on many of the ways you changed.
It is due to be reviewed by WSCC to reclassify the A272 West of the A24 to a non-primary A road (likely due to me pestering them about it for the past few years) but this has not yet happened. https://yourvoice.westsussex.gov.uk/9868/widgets/28223/documents/13943 (section 7.140)

I'll revert the changesets which you changed the A272's classification
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111214944

This isn't an unclassified road. Its a track, at most a service road
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110804928

Apart from the section you later deleted, this change looks good.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110713419

Hi Albalupasest,
Are you aware that you deleted Cambridge Road?
If this is a mistake could you please reinstate it.
If this road is current closed for a period of time, could you consider using access tags or construction tags to show that it is current inaccessible.
Kind Regards,
Thomas
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110713487

Hi Puckpics, I see that in this changeset you renamed "Green Lane" to "Byway Open to All Traffic". The name tag (the one you used) is for what the way/road is known as and not what it is. The way is already tagged as "byway_open_to_all_traffic" as its designation.
It may not be exactly clear how these things are tagged when you first start making changes on openstreetmap and that is understandable, I'll change it back to how it was.
You can read more about how to take public rights of way on the wiki article here:
osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom
If you have any questions feel free to ask here, or send me a message. There is also a discord group and mailing list if you have any questions.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110714222

Its not a traffic island. It is a cross in the centre of the road, physically dividing traffic with keep left signs. Having the carriageway split in two and the cross on its own node in the centre is a perfectly acceptable way to map it with more detail (aka micro mapping). All you have done is removed detail and incorrectly saying it is traffic calming when its purpose is not traffic calming.

Not sure why this change was needed. I've been past this dozens of times and It was perfectly mapped. revert?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110644410

Thanks for updating this! It would be helpful to know the width of the surface as well if you could add it. If not I should be able to take a look in a few days time
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110392649

I see you have changed this railway from abandoned to disused. Abandoned means that the track has been removed but is clearly where a railway was. Disused means that the rails are still in place, but are just not used or fallen into disrepair. Are you sure this is the case on this old loop?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109882483

Hi Dave,
Not sure if you are aware, but you deleted the old way and replaced it with a new one. In the future could you try to retain the old ways when possible to preserve its history please.
Thanks,
Thomas
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109748706

Hi Jerry,
I haven't walked this path in particular. Although I have cycled up Broad Fen Lane upto its end. Can't remember seeing anything of note where the model airfield is suppose to be.

This is a bridge, there are no level crossings here.

Hi Mark,
I've recently done a bit of work mapping Maderia Drive, I've provided both a pedestrian "area" as well as a footway, so routers should have no issues selecting a suitable path.
The oneway tag is a bit of a tricky one, but mostly there to avoid confusion if someone looking at the map data was wondering if the cycleway was oneway like the road adjacent, of course this tag isn't needed, but a nice to have.
With the surface and slippiness, I've never had an issue with it since it was done, however if you think this is an issue you could add "hazard=slippery" to the way
hazard=slippery