Hi
When you make deletion amendments to ways could you please check to see if they break route relations. In this case NCN 4 cycle route.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-up_retail

As much as an indicator to me to check after the Christmas period. If you know of a better tag, please let me know.

You would hope so, but maintenance of the definitive statement has always been lax. BANES are currently having, by law, to create one for the central city as it didn't exist.

They need to be updated to be defined by co-ordinates rather than transient objects such as 'boundary walls'

All DSs are old, unfortunately, but still current & legal.
Yes. One kissing gate:
https://snipboard.io/IR8xU4.jpg

I believe it ran down his track (google streetview):
http://tinyurl.com/rfzmch7
and Kingswood (legally?) relocated it into the field.
This is the definitive statement I've just obtained from BANES:
https://snipboard.io/D5aLuB.jpg
Note "path bound on North by wall, South by fence, 10 foot wide" The only place that occured was at the far end of that track here:
osm.org/go/eukh_7UJr-?m=&changeset=78063156.

Hi
Welcome to OSM
Why have you split these closed ways to create relations?
They lookd fine as normal polygons.

Please don't attach polygons to the centre line of roads. When a gate is added to the polygon's boundary to represent an entrance it will also insert the gate on the road messing up routing software.

Hi Nuggg
I walked it yesterday & see some signs have been erected. Unsure if they're by BANES or Kingswood off their own bat.
The reason I query this is the route is clearly shown South of the wall in two available sources:
This is the dataset issued by BANES. Blue is their path alignment, red is your amendment:
https://snipboard.io/3jTgQM.jpg
Ordnance Survey:
https://binged.it/342Evnl

Clarification from BANES is required.

PS Apologies, I see now you retained the stile.

Hi
That the conjoining sections are both 'Bath Road' as are the campsite & pub addresses, could that be the correct name?

Hi
Do you have evidence (signposts etc)?
There is a stile in the wall for walkers to cross ovr, which you removed for some reason.

Hi
No need to readd 'riverbank' as natural=water,
water=river is a better alternative which ties in with all the other 'water' tags.

changeset/73505035#map=16/55.6106/8.4678

Hi
I've read that a few times, but it doesn't say why.

Why can't the import bot check for building ways?

As it stands this makes the OSM database less effective.

Hi
Why have you "removed addresses from buildings"?
It's a perfectly legitimate, accepted means to add addresses in OSM.
Addresses are, after all, associated with buildings.

What were the "Various errors"?
Amalgamating isolated nodes with just addresses & no primary tags with 'building' ways improves OSM's database quality.
Why do you believe your edit hasn't reduced the quality?

Hi
Why not?
AFAICT address data was transferred from isolated nodes with no primary tag information to closed ways of 'building'. This is an accepted & popular tagging method making the OSM database more accurate.

Hi Welcome to OSM.
FYI non adopted, cul-de-sac roads on private land are best tagged as service roads.
When adding new sections of road please check to see if they break route relations in this case NCN4 cycle route:
way/750203025#map=18/51.66832/-4.72112&layers=C

Hi Welcome to OSM

FYI you've missed a few bridges:
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=77767031

Hi Nick
There's a lot of confusing information on this page, but the 'UK' examples are all wrong & should be removed (IMO)*

They're all given highway=path tags but the more popular way is to be more specific highway=footway/bridleway/cycleway etc. Some contributors misinterpret this as authoritative, that cycleway indicates cyclists has priority. This is incorrect - it only indicates that more transport modes are allowed to use it.

Bridleways: Both walkers & cyclists have rights to use a bridleway so can be 'designated'
Cycleways: The vast majority in the UK are shared paths (the blue signs of a bike & a person indicate designated use)
Footway: There is no requirement for 'no' tags as non access rights of bikes & horses is implied.

*There are far too many web pages for UK access rights with differing information. An amalgamation is required.

Hi
What is PDOK imagery?

171441196
Apologies. I wasn't paying close attention.

226074641
This is the signage
https://snipboard.io/edzaUS.jpg

I agree cycleway=yes is redundant.
Highway shouldn't really have been change previously from cycleway to footway. However footway can still have a valid foot=designated tag. The blue sign in the picture of the path indicates both walking & cycling is designated.

way/24831846/history
Similarly this cycleway can be bicycle=designated

DaveF