Hi, This is an unclassified highway as verified by the County Council and various Ordnance Survey Maps. Please don't corrupt OpenstreetMap's verifiable data by changing the way status to suit your own agenda.

Hi, Are you sure that house isn't named "The Maltings"?

Regards Bernard.

No response so I've removed the node

Hi, The County Council indicate that both sections are open for use.

Hi, The ownership of the land is a different matter to that of highway status. Actually, almost all land in the UK os owned so technically is private.

This link :- https://www.findmystreet.co.uk/map?usrn=24901356 , will show that all of Ironstone Lane, as I said, is open to the public by virtue that it is maintained at public expense.

USRN: 24901356
IRONSTONE LANE, SCALFORD
Classification: None
Responsibility: Maintainable at public expense, Leicestershire
Street State: Open

USRN: 24901355
IRONSTONE LANE, HOLWELL, AB KETTLEBY
Classification: None
Responsibility: Maintainable at public expense, Leicestershire
Street State: Open

I've added the tag passing_places=yes

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Again information from the County Council website says Stone Penn Lane is an unclassified Publicly Maintained (Adopted) highway. As it seems this is a way open to the public I've amended the tags.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Information from the County Council website says Ironstone Lane is an unclassified Publicly Maintained (Adopted) highway. Further, there is a Public Right of Way that terminates on Ironstone Lane, PRoWs must terminate at a publicly accessible place. At both ends, signs say "Single track road, No passing place for 1 mile". I would think the gates are for stock control.

As it seems this is a way open to the public I've amended the tags.

Regards Bernard.

Duplicate way removed, tweak tags

Hi, Please don't join highways to power cables, it constitutes a danger of death.

Duplicated section of highway removed tags amended.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've removed a section of highway that you inadvertently duplicated. Also amended and added to the bridleway tags as per OSM practice.

If a way needs correcting please correct/amend the existing way.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed the way Auchleven (427719668, v5) as it duplicates Way: 1087668290.

I've added a POI Node: Auchleven (9967139734) to hold the village data as per OSM practice.

Regards Bernard

Hi, You need to give more information than just tourism=attraction. Also, please place the POI on the attraction rather than in the middle of a road. Otherwise the POI should be removed.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Your new road Way: Department of Geoinformatics to Aniket Canteen (1087130771) is mainly a duplication of existing highways. Also, the tags seem somewhat illogical. Thus I've removed the duplicate way.

Regards Bernard.

Hello There, I think what might have happened is that the new cycle path you added (Way: 1086970534, named Wyt), was orthogonalised. This means that all nodes were amended to make a straight line. I've taken a screenshot of the area of the now-deleted Way: 1086970534, named Wyt. You can download the screenshot here:- https://ufile.io/6p85wb0a

Even if the above assumption is not exactly what happened it was the straightening of Way: 1086970534 that dragged things out of correct alignment.

Regards Bernard.

Thanks for replying, it's now removed.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed your Way: Johnny Cut Road (1086679909) as it duplicates Way: Johnny Cut Road (1086678978) that your Amazon Logistics colleague jsmoham added 3 minutes before you added it.

Duplication of highways would really mess up routing for your drivers. Please work together to try and avoid duplication, or check the warnings above.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, With the exception of Way: 1086970535 I've reverted these changes because you somehow inadvertently dragged lots of existing features out of alignment. All is OK now.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, It looks like Way: 1027478085 is not needed, perhaps you inadvertently added a duplicate line? Can it be removed?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, If pedestrians have access to the footpath then access=no is incorrect. I've removed the acess=no tag. It's a footpath which implies non other that foot traffic is allowed.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, this is already mapped, it's part of St Christophers Village tourism hostel.
Osm object/feature Way: St Christophers Village (100799887)