Hi, from what I can see the A77 has been highway=primary ever since it was added to the map. So I'm wondering what makes you think it should be a trunk road?

Oops, saw it deleted on https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=49272844 but should've checked by editing the map :)

Did you meant to delete this path? way/200228901

Honestly I'm not too sure either - nothing much on any mailing lists, and the only real place it's mentioned in the wiki is osm.wiki/NaPTAN/Surveying_and_Merging_NaPTAN_and_OSM_data

Looking at imported stops in Edinburgh without the verified tag, seems like they were removed 3 years ago by a mapper who probably just checked their existance changeset/17791127

But since it's a NaPTAN tag, maybe it's just to check the stop is actually there?

Hi,
Any particular reason why you deleted lit=no from a number of paths and roads?

Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for the edits. Just a few comments on your changes:
way/498060269 - if this doesn't have A&E then it should be tagged with emergency=no
School buildings, when enclosed in school grounds shouldn't have a name: way/394657414
Cheers

Hi, noticed you added a note saying this bus stop is present and has been verified: node/502532560 - if so you should probably remove the naptan:verified tag. Same goes for other stops.

It seems like all 3 of Scotland's regional parks have been tagged as nature reserves - perhaps as the boundary=protected_area tag on its own doesn't render on the standard layer?
Don't know if boundary=national_park would be appropriate or only for use on Cairngorms/Loch Lomond?

Hi,
The Old Mill Inn could probably be combined with a relation so there's not a duplicate, and building tags added as well. Or draw a way around the grounds and tag it as a pub?
I assume this should be ref=B9077, and a bridge over the stream? way/40967522

Why have you added this building?

I assume node/3012910526 is a duplicate of the health centre/doctors?

A hunting stand named "Simon" and parking named "house boot airb&b" - really?

Nice to have you back :)
Walking/cycle routes are mapped using relations, here's the WHW relation/16287 Looking at other routes, the individual paths don't have the route name, just the relation.
Rule of thumb for path versus track seems to be if it's wide enough for a vehicle highway=track
If that's the case, you might also want to change the bridges on the paths as well, eg: way/490705118

Thanks for the reply. If you look at the link and scroll down you'll see it was changed to tertiary (i.e. declassified) 3 years ago. This matches what OS shows and what's described in https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=B764

So I'm just wondering what's changed since then or is the previous edit (and OS) wrong? :)

You might have made it neater but you've removed some of the information from the map by deleting the old road and not adding the info to the new road, see: way/70610064/history
Also, why have you changed it to highway=secondary?

Hi, welcome to OSM.
Just to make you aware you don't need to add the WHW name to each path as they are part of a larger WHW route relation.
Also you've changed some tracks to path - why is that? Are they definitely not big enough for farm vehicles?

Here's one marked under construction with a ref: node/2296370179 - use the overpass-turbo link and click "run" to find more.

I'd seen lanes=1 used for narrow roads before, so it was a surprise when I read the wiki page saying the lanes tag was for marked lanes.

Unless you get your tape measure out and measure the width, lanes=1 or 1.5 judged by car widths are surely a better estimate?

You might want to remove these nodes: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/pfe and maybe add the ref to your nodes?
Also, did you check the offset for the DG imagery? Might not matter too much for power towers but usually it's a bit off compared to Bing.

Hi, thanks for extending NCN 6. However you've created a new relation, so I've merged it with the existing NCN relation.