I couldn't decide how it should be tagged - but something lower would probably be better.

ahhh, my mistake - just fixed it

thanks for the link - the overpass query for each section is super handy
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133029762

ah okay, sorry about that - it should be fine :)

I've merged it into a relation - next time just feel free to do it if you think it will improve the tagging coherency :)

sounds good :)

Have you imported any new boundaries yet?

i'm not sure. I was only looking at satellite imagery & traces and would have only moved that node to keep it next to the path. if you doubt its still there feel free to remove it

Hello!
My previous review of your changeset was wrong, so I'm changing its
status to unreviewed on OSMCHA. Sorry for the error.
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55252846

alright, sounds good - i was just concerned you had removed the whole way, rather than tags :)

Hello!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55253135

Hello!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements
that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me
to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.org/ to get started.
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55252846

This seemed to be a perfectly reasonable footpath - has it been removed for new development, that imagery doesn't show?

ah okay - my bad. thanks for fixing them :)

Dont worry, it was only northern sections where the polygons mirrored each other exactly

you've added the tag building=yes to some large areas of land that are also tagged landuse=commercial. the normal convention is to only place the tag building=yes on specific/individual buildings and not large areas. the tagging of landuse=commercial is enough to let people know that there will be buildings in the area until such time that someone is prepared to map the individual buildings
osm.wiki/Buildings

Yeah, that was my struggle as well. I couldn't view the history or any changes related to it, and the only relevant page i could find was on boundaries. I see/have no issue with you changing the tags to fit relation:land_area as it does seem to fit better

It could be. I was primarily trying to revert a seemingly arbitrary change to type=multipolygon that was causing an issue in a renderer