Ah, apologies. I didn't load the relations. As you were.

To check Tom, why are you splitting ways, but making no tag amendments?

To check:
Where did you obtain the outline for the Wash? Why have you excluded the sandbanks? It doesn't look that accurate.
I may have missed it, but I thought the last discussion decided oceans/seas/area of open water to be named with a node.

I've started remapping manually on the user's other changesets (primarily railway stations). I haven't reverted as:
a) Others have added changesets after.
b) The user has added other data which /may/ be valid.
This one seems fully incorrect & 'clean' so should be reverted I believe.

Epsom Railway Station updates. Needs tweaking

FYI, In the iD editor there's a option to 'square' pitches/buildings etc - select object ,right click, Square.

Also, is this accessible to the public?
way/703365925

Names should be official/signed names. Use osm.wiki/Tag:'description='
osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

way/703365925

Hi
To check again, has the car park for the Bell Inn been dug up/removed? If it exists, it should still be mapped. Add access=no to indicate it's closed

Hi
Welcome to OSM

To check, is the Pathfinder Place development fully completed?
If it's still being built the tag to use is landuse=construction.
landuse=construction

Are any of the roads accessible?

"highway=sidewalk" is the preferred tag
Not true. There's no such tag

Oh, please; stop diverting.
It's a walking route. Do you have evidence of signage?

What evidence have you that this route extends into Bristol?

*inconsistent

Why have you removed foot/bicycle tags from established ways?

> From experience I prefer to have the name of a recognised route at regular intervals when no other name is relevant,

Inventing names to suit personal desires is not acceptable. OSM isn't designed just to suit the individual.

> "most names were invented at some point"

It is not the purpose of OSM to create those names. It reflects established, verifiable names.

>an intention to walk from Avonmouth to Woolwich in 2020

Perhaps you should wait until you've walked it before making shot in the dark amendments.

You've removed foot=designated even though it's a PROW
You've added bicycle=dismount even though there are no signs
You've added horse=no even though it's a towpath!
You've removed all cycling tags even though it's an NCN route way/544323127

For the above reasons I will be reverting your edit

Not only are your edits erroneous, they're lackadaisically consistent (only changing the occasional way) & proves you're mapper who contributes no improvements to the OSM database. Please refrain from editing in such a manner, especially in this area.

>Neither use is dominant.

The tagging, as was, implied no dominance for either user.

It's location is irrelevant. it's still classed as a shared use cycleway.

if the vast majority of a changeset is incorrect (as in this case - The K&A towpath relation shouldn't be extended) then a changeset revert is required.

>To tag them 'cycleway' seems to not only an appropriation and, to an international reader, saying do not go here.
>But to rely on UK customary use is not helpful.

I think you're misunderstanding 'cycleway' which can be used to map shared ways

Having a cycle route relation attached to a way doesn't not make that way accessible to bike riders. It requires cycle specific tags on the actual ways.

Changing cycleway to path but not adding tags allowing cycling prevents accessibility to bikes.
way/129444879

Deleting foot=* on ways where walking is designated is wrong
way/667952161/history

"Kennet and Avon Canal towpath" is not the name of the path. There is a route relation titled "Kennet and Avon Canal towpath"

>But where the response is simply "that (cycleway) is just how we do it in the UK, then no thank you.

This is a tad hypocritical as you're clearly assuming it should be to suit the perspective of "an international reader," & "where I live"

For the above reasons I believe this, & other changesets of Alwyns has reduced the quality of the database & should be reverted

Are you sure this access was blocked up?
way/104932797

Hi
What does ... (route) represent?