Hi. Didn't intend to delete anything, but I don't have visibility of the OS Open USRN data you refer to. Generally (but not always, eg for patches of council housing) the Cadastral parcels data available in JOSM is clear which ways are part of the 'public' highway eg residential and which are shared ownership access service ways. The OS OpenMap Local also distinguishes, and these sources usually match. If the USRN applies to the 'whole' road, I presume the whole of a turning 'T' would be included. I noted a comment on the USRN information that it would be set against a 'OS Mastermap' (whatever that is) and wouldn't necessarily exactly align with OSM ways. Do you have a way of showing the USRN data as a JOSM layer/overlay?

St is the full form of the honorific before a saint's name in UK english. All usage of 'Saint'+name is OSM is wrong unless there is local signage or other official documentation that uses that form. A description of the way may be "the road of the saint called Leonard" but the full form of the name of the saint is St Leonard (St or St. interchangably, recent Engish usage favours no use of point) and the road is therefore St Leonards Road (with or without apostrophy as local signage/usage dictates). Review any number of 1000s of websites etc for churches, CofE/Catholic schools etc in UK eg start by reviewing the contents of www.stpauls.co.uk and tell them all if they are always writing their own names wrongly.

That wiki page is fine for me. Check 3rd paragraph including link referring to British placenames beginning with "St"

St for Saint is an established name prefix like Mr, Mrs etc and is shown on road signs like this, and normally represented the same in OSM. Abbreviations for road, street etc are not accepted and this is not relevant here.

I don't understand. The area was covered with grass until the new building and access roads were added and now is not. Feel free to improve the map.

It is completely unnecessary to add oneway=no to roads like the A534, and in almost every other case. The iD editor is wrong to suggest otherwise.

However it is completely terrible to add oneway=yes to a short length of that road, this wrecked routing for me today.

Oneway tags removed.

What does this area represent? The display was well represented as its front shape. Do not think that you must do something, anything, if iD bleats about what it considers to be a problem.
Also the changeset comment 'updated' is completely unacceptable, every time you've used it. You've been asked about this before. A suitable changeset comment would describe what you've changed and why. eg "changed advertising display from linear way to area because iD asked me to"

The outermost way of a 'simple 3d building' shall be a building= not building:part=
You can find out about 'simple 3d building' definition at osm.wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings
Tag level is not relevant.
Damage repaired.

What was your source for setting the height of the tower down to 53m? I think I can see where you got it from, but OSM needs to know where you are sourcing the information from for your edits, user googlenaut.
Also, you need to make sure all the external building:parts use *all* the relevant building outline nodes, else you can leave a crack as you did here.
Also if you add extra space ready for more building parts you need to add those parts, else the default building height (the overall height if specified or a default based eg on the size of the building) will get used as here.
Also if you use 'saltbox' roof shape it descends in all directions which is not appropriate if you need half of that shape.
Also its fine to have building part areas arranged horizontally apart, and they don't need arbitrarily changing to vertical stacking.
Also if you move an alignment, even if it was poor, you need to adjust more than one adjacent node, maybe a whole area is consistent and needs doing all or not at all.
Also building relations are an added complication which is rarely (never?) needed, eg the most 'simple 3d building' compliant viewer f4map doesn't refer to them at all.
This set of changes wasn't ok, changes have not been retained.

Should disused railway platforms that are not public transport platforms be tagged as if they are?
Should private bus stops that are not public transport platforms be tagged as if they are?
Sometime inconsistencies are deliberate, not errors.

Russ,
I note the fixme was present on the first version of this way added ~10yr ago, maybe the shape of the way was then a rough guess and added to join up the relation route.
I also note this changeset was the 1st (and only) edit by this editor, and used ID and has a resolved:crossing_ways:highway-waterway flag set. So I would guess the user added bridge to the path because ID told them it was a solution to the way crossing the stream.
Suggest to remove the false/unnecessary tags, divide it at the farm and just have simple highway=footway and =track
Cebderby (Clive)

Hi mattfry, thanks for confirming the access. Seems it's quite a wide way so if it and the gate(s) at the ends are big enough for vehicle access - perhaps just for maintenance - then having it as highway=track is good, else it can just be a highway=bridleway and would then need no other tags. With it as a track, it needs something to stop public vehicle access, currently the routers allow cars etc on it. It had access=no before it was opened, the opposite of this is just to delete the access tag completely, as =yes or =designated can imply that all users (incl bus/hgv/etc!) could try and use it. Also worth noting that x=designated means 'all of x are designated' to use, not 'the designated ones of x' can use; a bit confusing that one. So I'd delete the access tag, also the note tag is out of date and should go too. A gate can go on the Lockington Church St end (presum this is between the roadway and the new parallel footway in a gap in a hedge?), then the track and optionally gates too should have motor_vehicle=private to stop car routing. regards Cebderby (Clive)

You have commented on the wrong changeset. You want 98516784

Thank you for your prompt reply.
I had expected an apology and explanation for your unacceptable action, not offensive abuse, but you can't have everything.
Are you going to re-fix the bus routes and the bad alignment then?

In this changeset you have:
- reverted a change without discussion
- damaged the corrected alignment of a road
- reinstated damaged bus routes
You will kindly explain you actions.

all your vandalism reverted

Hi tomhukins, no problem - all done. Looks like it's getting rendered ok (on Standard and Humanitarian layers at larger zooms which get re-rendered promptly), with the nature reserve still showing on both areas (W of road near cafe as well as the E side main bit) and no perimeter track. So all good I think,
Cebderby (Clive)

As bus=yes is not a documented or recommended tag for highway=bus_stop + public_transport=platform, it may be considered more of a 'minor error' to add this tag than for it to be absent.

Tom,
I think you're right this is no path. Looking at the history of that way:
way/155062565/history
it was created as one of a pair with 155062563 (the nature reserve area to the west of Spurn Road). Then it seems the path tag was added when real footways were added:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=48706439
Curiously, the changeset comment for the subsequent:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=57912073
says they are removing the path but does the exact opposite.
Also at some point, because there are 2 areas for the same thing, relation:
relation/8190901/history
was added, but oddly only contains way/155062565 (and with no 'outer' role) but does mean the nature reserve gets labelled on the long thin area.
Suggest that both 155062565 and 155062563 should be kept, set as 'outer' members of relation/8190901, and can then have all their tags removed (ie drop the then-duplicative tags from 155062563 and the false path from 155062565) except perhaps a note= on each to say that they are members of a relation to avoid future confusion. Don't know if this is easy/doable in iD, I tend to use JOSM + Potlatch and can do it there if easier.
Cebderby (Clive)

Please read
https://www.abct.org.uk/footer/terms/
before making any more edits