Hi - just to let you know, the new footpath way/360618910 current;y doesn't quite join the A18 at the southern end. I'm guessing that in reality it actually does, and in order that routers using OpenStreetMap data can route over paths like this, it makes sense to join it up. Hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to help.
Cheers,
Andy

I've removed this node, as a Starbucks has already been added at the original location osm.org/#map=18/39.89664/116.39148 . The issue with POI+ has already been logged; see https://github.com/davidchiles/osm-poi-editor-iOS/issues/10 .

Hello - hope you don't mind me asking, but I was wondering about the cycleway. The imagery suggests that the A1260 goes over it on a bridge - is that true? If so, you could add cretae a short "bridge" section of the A1260 to make it obvious. Let me know if you want help doing this (or you'd like me to). Also, the cycleway's currently been added as one way from west to east. Whilst this is possible, it's a bit unusual - can you really not cycle the other way?
Cheers,
Andy

Does "North Miami Beach" need to be re-added (relation/118860/history , before it became an advertisment)? There's also a node, node/154288838 .

Hi - way/377030680 doesn't seem to have any tags on it - is it perhaps a barrier of some sort, perhaps a barrier=wall?

Hi - any reason you've deleted way way/10181972/history but left the underlying nodes such as node/84034645 ? The remaining nodes do mostly seem to match the Bing imagery. Is that out of date?

Is the name of node/3616332641/history really "Corporation Street (Oct 2015)" rather than just "Corporation Street"?

@Govanus - when you say "Osmrender" what exactly do you mean? Do you mean the former osm.org map layer osm.wiki/Osmarender ? The software still exists, but the instance that was hosted on osm.org is long gone. Or perhaps you mean something else? I'm also not sure exactly what "the dataproduct version of osm the planet files" is?

Also, you've removed a "restaurant" tag from way/365192544/history#map=18/53.25831/-2.31093 . Presumably you've been there and determined that it's more pub that restaurant? Wouldn't it have been sensible at the very least to add a "food=yes" tag?

Something's gone seriously wrong with way/144938464/history#map=17/53.05310/-1.97739 I think. You've changed it from "unclassified" to "track", but how much of it is a duplicate of way/39822084 ? How much of it is signed as "Charles Bank"?

Rather than trying to "fix" the data it's probably better here to add an OSM note so that someone local can survey it. I've done bits around Foxt, Froghall, Cheddleton and Kingsley Holt but alas not this bit :(

Re way/343442814 west of the bypass, it is a public footpath (I've been there - there's a sign on the fence at the east end pointing west, and a stile on the fence suggesting access to the bypass is legal).

way/340896855 is still a bit rubbish though. It doesn't match the imagery, probably joins the bridleway at the southwest end (and the bridleway may be a track there). That bit still needs a proper survey.

Oops - something has gone a bit wrong with way/366730621/history (either in this changeset or with a previous one that this way was split from). Is this bit lit or not? It's currently "yes; no".

Oops - I think that something went a bit wrong with way/3293099/history here, it got changed to "lit=yes; no". From memory way/131559947 is not lit and way/3293099/history is, but I'm not sure how much of way/211447351/history (and the corresponding section on the other carriageway) is.

Where did the height data come from?

Where did the height data come from?

There's no way to change a changeset comment after closing it, but you've already fixed it by adding a comment to the discussion!

I'm not convinced that the geometry "fixes" here are beneficial at all. The area's a mess (local and non-local mappers have tried to sort out the mess perpetrated by the original mapper). Making multipolygons out of a mess still leaves a mess, but now one that's more difficult to fix.

Hi, I was looking through some of the lesser-used "tunnel" values in the UK (trying to work out which to render) and I came across way/374293806 . Is "culvert2" just a misspelling of "culvert" or is it a different sort of culvert that I'm not aware of?
Cheers,
Andy

Hi, I was looking through some of the lesser-used "tunnel" values in the UK (trying to work out which to render) and I came across way/117992265 . I'm not sure what it is - is it a pedestrian arcade (i.e. needs some sort of highway tag)? I'm guessing that way/331708689 is not a separate "footway" in the normal sense but the just the roadside footpath (I'd normally tag that as "sidewalk=left/right/both" FWIW, though plenty of people do draw them separately, especially if there's a separation of sidewalk from road).

Hi, is way/358903678 really called "Granby Way cyclepath"? Roadside cyclepaths rarely have names; usually people navigate by the name of the road. See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only . Hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to help (and apologies if it is signed that - you're local, I'm not!).
Cheers,
Andy