Fair enough for the automated edit (although I really don't think it should apply to these maintenance-style fixes), but building= & building:part= both imply one 'building part' by their existence. Tagging building:part=no is like tagging building=no.

A renderer not correctly displaying data should be fixed, not the data changed.

(sorry about the big changeset)

oops, submitted before changing the description. added parking areas, aligned stuff.

Welcome to OSM!
good to see another mapper in Greenwich! feel free to DM me if you have any questions :)

Welcome to OSM! If you have any questions, feel free to send a message :)
I've changed the tagging to office=student_union for this 👍

(also thank you for using organicmaps, as I help out with that too!)

Nicely done, thank you! 😄

oops, didn't mean to request a review

ah wait you didn't add that, don't worry 👍

is way/745977001 definitely private?

And also meant large, not lage. Apparently I can't spell...

Oops, I changed them to `ref:GB:decc`, not `reg:GB:decc`.

The footpath way/1074497315 was removed a couple of months ago as part of the park rejuvenation scheme, so I've removed it again 👍

Once again, thank you for the edits, but please don't edit the landuse like that. Mapping landuse to the pavement border is standard landuse practice.

Thank you! I must have deleted it accidentally 🤦‍♂️

Thank you for the much-needed changes to the cycling infrastructure :)

The landuse changes aren't ideal though, mapping landuse to the pavement edges is a fairly standard practice for micromapping, so I've reverted those to how they were before.

Although this edit wasn't perfect, many thanks for all your road/transport/cycling work across London :)

Ah good catch! I've updated the tagging to correctly mark it as contraflow :)

Fixed in this changeset:
changeset/121280785

ah, it's a MapRoulette task. They shouldn't be removed, but retagged as `area:aeroway=runway`

Why was this removed?

The protected_class tags are all fixed now, thank you for your contributions so far :)

Thank you for the detailed mapping!

One suggestion, it's better to create a large building area containing house extensions, then you can add osm.org/wiki/building:part for each of the different parts :)

this type of mapping is part of Simple 3D Buildings, which may be interesting to look at: osm.wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings