I have been past here many a time too. It's correctly mapped (monument + traffic island). What's the issue?

Hi, the sources I use are mainly Google Street View and personal experience. I've added restrictions from signage and the latest street view images (checking it is up to date of course). If anything is incorrect I apologise.

This was a geometry fix, not alignment to the Bing satellite map

I would suggest not tagging the roads inside the car parks as having height limits. The height restrictor itself provides the height limit, and it can be removed in certain circumstances.

Given the drive-throughs are one way it makes more sense to sign the restrictions as they are; the barrier and low roof

Thank you. Only M, A and B roads are used on road signs in Great Britain (C roads come up occasionally but they are not authorised to). C and U roads are only used by highway authorities for documents and suchlike so it is better to use the "highway_authority_ref" tag

Hi, can you please use the tag "highway_authority_ref" instead of "ref" when applying a C or U ref on a road.

I suppose so, please feel free to change as appropriate

i suppose the roundabout could be marked as tertiary. I'll make some adjustments

I wasn't too sure how to mark this, please feel free to make any changes necessary

Hi, the reason for removing the bicycles=no tag is it is surplus info; the motorway has that access as no by default. As for the downgraded road, motorway restrictions have been removed and unless signs are present saying otherwise, bicycles are allowed there. As for the layer=-1, that is to make the join between roundabout and motorway look nice at the M6

I did not add a prohibition, there are cycle lanes on the bridge though

The wiki does not suggest that every single traffic island should be mapped as two-one way roads. For larger or unique islands this may be acceptable but for single islands like the ones I corrected this adds nothing compared to a single point marked with the relevant island tag, not to mention the map looks poor - good aesthetics as well as correct mapping is key

Firstly it is not up to you to consider what is right and wrong, that's determined by the wiki. If you look here crossing:island=* and here traffic_calming=island you will see that islands of the type I corrected should be mapped in the way I did; a node and tag on that node of an island. By removing my edits purely because of your selfishness and apparent NIMBY nature, I suggest you read the wiki and discuss features and edits on talk pages rather than spitefully remove edits that you do not like. This is my reply to all your reverts.

It is definitely proposed and has been for years otherwise the motorway junction would never have been built. The owners of the land won't build it yet is the only thing, hence it is not under construction but proposed.

There are no bridges over the paths, these are covered passages or tunnels you could say. Some minor tweaks have been made where appropriate but the smaller roundabout in particular was way out of line.

Fair enough, there was not enough evidence in the discussion raised. If more comes I'll bring it up in this edit again.,

875878531 - hatched markings act as an island here
208137299 - same as above
208286770 - trunk_link should be used for ramps onto dual carriageways, this is the case here
875878536 - again, the hatchings are here separating the road and slip road, and the incorrect road types were used, so if that was you please do not use tertiary_link for anything but tertiary roads.

See here for details https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=42039. Consensus thus far is non trunk, I suggest waiting a few days if more information comes through then appropriate action will be taken

This is trunk for many reasons, most notably the signs are green along the length and the national mapping agency for GB marks it as trunk also.
Do you have evidence to say it should be primary?