Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

There is some access to these paths so it's incorrect to just say access=no. There is access on foot and being agricultural land there would be agricultural access. You would need to define the type of access that is not allowed before saying access=no. I've amended or removed your access=no tags.

Regards Bernard.

Hello,

There are many warnings given above, several of these warnings could be mapping that could cause disruption to routing. Could you please look at and try to fix some of the problems?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, It looks like your landcover tag is being used wrongly, the areas you've mapped are actually individual trees or tree lines as you've previously accepted. As such OSM practice says they should be nodes or linear features not area features. Whatever you add to OSM should be correct ground truth and verifiably. So features of temporary or personal nature should not be added. Thus the landcover tagged areas should be removed.

You can map temporary or personal features with JOSM and save them without uploading to the OSM database. Perhaps you could use this method ASAP to hold the landcover features for you future use.

OSM is a live worldwide database from which thousands of maps are compiled. Other users have a right to expect it to be consistent, so I'll continue to correct anyones mapping in order to better OSM.

Hi, I've removed the bridge tag from the footpaths, also added layer tags to the bridges.

Hi, I've made amendments to rectify the warnings given above which relate to highways.

Hi, I've just removed 5 sections of duplicated highways. Please take care not to make duplicated highways as it could cause problems with routing. Making very large changesets, (about 250 features edited/added here), makes it very difficult for you or anyone else to spot mistakes. 10 features in a changeset is easy to check.

Regards Bernard.

Hello SomeoneElse,
I think this new users changesets look very similar to user Grayson Braham-Dopwell who has just been blocked.
I'll leave it for you to revert if you think the same.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Your fantasy mapping has been removed. OSM is a live worldwide database to which fantasy mapping is not welcome. There are other places to construct fantasy maps a Google search will assist you.

Regards Bernard.

Hello,
It seems from the warnings above and the few problems I've just corrected that the are imperfections in your mapping. The warnings above state 31 crossing highways and 23 disconnected highways. I've removed several duplicated sections of highway. These problems ought to be resolved as they could lead to disruption of routing.

Regards Bernard.

No response so I've corrected as best I can.

Hi, I've unjoined the grass areas from highway center lines.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your website says this is a facility for online book purchase, not a shop open to the public. Thus it is better described/tagged as office=online_shop. I've made the amendment.

I've also removed the tag shop=books from the building as this is not correct. The building is not a book shop.

Regards Bernard

Hi, Regarding the Way: 1305827977 tagged landcover=trees and natural=tree_row. The landcover isn't rendered so is of no value. The tag natural=tree_row, this tag should refer to a linear feature not an area. This is why the area is rendered as a tree row enclosing an area. The two tags don't coexist.

Regards Bernard.

Hello there, As you can see here:- changeset/154871584#map=18/52.32865/-3.87478&layers=N the tag landcover=? isn't rendered, so no one looking at the OSM map will see it. But the tags natural=wood, natural=forest, natural=tree_row are rendered. The landcover tag was proposed for use (and to be open has been used often), but it was as far as I know never approved or accepted by vote.

Way: 1305836366 you've tagged as landcover=trees, natural=wood. The landcover tag is unnecessary as the natural=wood tag renders the area on it's own.

Way: 1305836370 looks more like a hedge with 3 trees, unrendered because of the tags. A better, rendered, tagging would comprise of a linear hedge (barrier=hedge) and 3 nodes tagged natural=tree.

Regards Bernard

Hi, It the gardens are for the dwellings and not open to the public, they ought to be tagged access=private.

Regards

A second duplicated section removed.

Duplicated highway removed, public footpath aligned and tagged.

Hi, There seems to be quite a few problems here with the interconnectivity of differing levels among other things. Please see here:- https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=0.28474&lat=50.76930&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Regards Bernard.

Hi spencerledger, There was no response from the mapper. With your say that this is incorrect, I've reverted the changeset.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Review of this changeset, firstly there are many warnings of problems as can be seen above. Some warnings are critical and need to be corrected, others are things that the mapper should look at and correct/amend to suit OSM practice.

Secondly it is an extremely large changeset, 171 features added or amended. This number of edits in a single changeset makes it very difficult for yourself or anyone to check. There are 10 warnings of crossing highways these are critical as they adversely effect routing. It will be difficult to find the crossing highways in a large changeset. It's best to limit a changeset to about 10 items.

There are problems, the first item, way/1305227907 is incorrectly tagged. it's tagged natural=tree_row and waterway=ditch. But it is on top of way/1305227972 tagged as natural=tree_row. The tree row tag should be removed from the ditch. Also it's not likely that the tree row will be in the ditch.

No more time at the moment.

Regards Bernard.