OK, no worries. Hope not too many more to find. Rgds.

way/393623182 - These are link roads - stop changing them back, or have the decency to discuss on our forum first.

Hi Matt,
Yes would appreciate some help here .... no problems with the method Potlatch used to create them automatically. But I really struggled with the same method when using iD editor.
I ended up making some manual edits, but cud see a trail of redundant relations forming in my wake.
I'll take a look when u finished and try and learn.
Cheers. Russ.

Julian ... I wish you would do something more useful than checking the edits of a mapper thats been around a lot longer than you.
In the course of this changeset, I stumbled across this "hamlet" which had been mapped as landuse=residential, place=hamlet ...by Alaska Dave.
This NODE had been changed by a mapper to a Village, (for better visibility !) which made no logical sense as it sat in a relation tagged as a hamlet, and we don't "tag for the renderer"
I simply applied the correction.
Have you contacted Dave as the original mapper of the hamlet?
I don't read the forum much any more as your attempts to change things for the future do little to address the problem of existing tags.
It's simply not easy to check the official status of a village/hamlet as I pass by, but after recording the name on my GPS, when I put it on the map, I take a look at the size of the settlement. If its just a few houses, it goes in as a hamlet.... or Non-administrative settlement, as you might refer to it.
I map what I see on the ground, (some call it Duck tagging osm.wiki/Duck_tagging ), and will continue to do so.
Russ.

GrabTH_Napittha - You have changed this highway from Construction to Secondary, presumably as it now open.
Is there any reason why you did not remove the access=no tag ?
I see you have not added any U-turns ! This really does not help with accurate route navigation in our city.
Local mapper will fix your mistakes as we often do.

Sumittra_GrabTH : Do not change small sections of the Highway such as the Hwy 11/127 junction. These remain as roads.
Link roads are typically the flares, not the straight connections.
Please read the Wiki before editing.

I don't mean to put you off mapping but can you refrain from a/. changing existing data, without messaging the original mapper, and
b/. don't add and data you see on Google as this is not allowed on OSM. All info must either be gleaned from Bing aerial imagery or surveyed on the ground.
You should carry on , but keep to adding features such as riverbanks, forest areas, & buildings etc., which greatly help the map without risking damage to the more important items.
Cheers.

Starlord ... again I see bad edits. You have added the new Hwy 11 dual carriageway section, but the Eastbound carriage of Hwy 11 no longer connects to Hwy 101.
You are a new mapper and I urge you to stop editing major roads until you understand more about the impact of your edits.
I have added U-turns, which are very important when changing single roads to dual carriage.
The way you had it mapped, it would have forced anyone heading North on the 101 to Den Chai, a massive detour west until they could turn around to head East.
I rode this on Thursday and I know its not the case on the ground. Are you just mapping from a chair without doing any surveys... where are you getting your road information from ?
Russ

Im reverting what I can, but feel free to look at the map and change back any I have missed.
Tnx.

New mapper has got it wrong

changeset/144927790

Its wrong and the unpaved tags have been removed by a new mapper. These are agricultural tracks, not service roads.

changeset/144927272

Dear Starlord... why in the hell are you changing these agricultural tracks to SERVICE roads.
I ride them, they go through fields and orchards, they are UNPAVED so why are you vandalising the map by deleting the unpaved tag ?? Have you been down them ?
You are a new mapper and this is totally unacceptable behaviour. PLEASE STOP MAPPING NOW until you have read the Wiki on how to tag correctly and above all, talk to other mappers before changing existing work !
It will take me hours to undo your work, but I will.

OK . Thanks.

Hi Dave, I apologise if I inadvertently deleted the way & its history. I had split the way, deleted the jagged section, then went back and extended the ORIGINAL way with a higher level of precision.
I had no idea that iD editor would lose the history in this process, but retain the existing tagging !
I have checked the map this morning now its updated, and the By Brook is still complete. I don't think there was any info lost (other than creation & mod dates) so can we leave edit as is ?
I guess in the future, when a way is split and 2 are created, then its the one with the history intact that is the one that should be extended.
Live and learn, eh.
Cheers.

When drawing roads, please dont split into lots of small 2 node sections. Continue the road until it meets a natural break such as a junction or change in surface.

I betcha it should be source=Bing and got inadvertently corrupted during my editing. You got a node or way number I can check and fix it ?

bhar_gav : Experienced mappers have added these U-turns correctly as link roads. The Wiki confirms this.
Why do you remote #Grab mappers insist on changing them ? Its wrong and it pisses us off !
Please have the courtesy to discuss before changing existing work to your tagging beliefs.

arpit_a : Why did you add this way ? - It does not connect to the private road North, and is in fact the garden of a private house. Are you #Grab remote people are inventing roads to get paid ?
I have changed it.

Way: 351533419 actually changes to gravel half way down, heading west. With a gate at the eastern end, its even in doubt that it has public access.

Relationship now need to be deleted as hotel not there any more.