No worries,
I've fixed it

Hi,
I see you have made some changes to the building at 161-163 Preston Road.
It looks like you have mistakenly removed the building tag - I presume there is a still a building here?
Also the way which was a building is now a circle, is this correct too (i.e. has the building been rebuilt as a circle opposed to Bing aerial imagery from May 2020)?
I can fix these changes for you if you don't know how to

Kind Regards,
Thomas

Hi Andy. Road tagging/classification in the UK is set out that trunk=primary routes as well as secondary=B roads. I've reverted the changes you made in Oving and Midhurst back to what they should be. You can find information on how to tag roads in the UK in the following wiki page:
osm.wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom

Is there really a no right turn restriction here?

I reverted this CS in 112972876 due to it breaking bus route relations.
Please check to see differences between ways before merging them.
If a way has been split, there is usually a reason for it.

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