You'd hope! I see it now in old photos, now long-gone. Thanks

Can you offer any reassurance that this is a mistake, and not something more sinister?!:
node/2951687522

Have now done so. Let me know if I've made any mistakes

I reckon the wiki page is pretty explicit: "Do not use this on normal paved roadways that are designated for buses only."
I think that's applicable here as bicycles are also permitted on this section (but not on the pavement) so it's important to have the bicycle=* access tags on there too.
So, I'd go with highway=unclassified (it's not adopted), bus=private, and all the other relevant access tags

Have made some minor tag changes, but all looks good otherwise. Bank stabilising works still underway either side on the SE bank

Cheers, the news came through right after I'd left for the weekend. Will cast an eye over it when I'm back 👍

Hi Simon, do you know if Bunker Bikes still operates elsewhere? I see he was at Temple Meads for several years. I just deleted the node there after finding the shop gone, but now I've learned he used to operated from here, I'd be interested to ensure Bunker Bikes is still on the map if it still exists in some form.

Hi Iwerne, did you mean to change ways way/516833636 & way/1043781881 to a guideway? The guideway only starts on the bridge as I see it.

You're right, but it does have implications for the design of the way. Often the shared ways are pavements (sidewalks) and are designed for pedestrian use. They are then frequently condoned for cycling by adding signage, but not necessarily redesigning the pavement for the increased speed and routing considerations of cyclists. By tagging them as segregated or shared footway=sidewalks, I hope to capture this distinction that exists in the UK.

Yeah, I remember thinking that it'd be a pain to edit when I walked them a while ago! If you do end up splitting further, try to keep the way history in the most prominent (longest, maybe?) way, and I'd suggest including an incline tag on the 'landings' as they're far from flat.

Careful with your tagging here, you've missed adding the primary tag highway=footway for the sections between the steps, so the FP is now broken. I'll pop them back in now

Weirdly I only counted 19 (I also checked online, so was surprised). It'd need another visit to double check now as I've unfortunately deleted the photos.
Charging stations aren't my area of interest really, but I'm keen to see them in the OSM database, so I'm hoping someone with the experience will fill in the details (theory being that missing data is better than incorrect data)

OK, cheers. Seems like you're both in the same page then. I'll keep edits along those principles if I ever need to. Thanks for the help

Hi DaveF, can you please explain why Bristol has a massive residential MP relation? I remember seeing another users changeset comments with your discussion about it but now can't find that changeset. I only ask as I've found someone else who is actively dismantling the whole MP into smaller chunks, more aligned with the wiki description for landise=residential. I'm inclined to agree with them and map how they are, but is there anything in the useful in having a singular MP relation which might lost by splitting it up?

Brill, thanks for the Bushey example. I see there, though, you've also separated neighbouring areas along residential roads, not just primary-tertiary. Eg:
way/1299092272,
way/1299092269, & way/1272132126.
How do you decide what object is significant enough to separate them, and also to create a corridor space where the road passes?
I'm guessing this has all been discussed somewhere, I could head there to read up on the background arguments?

OK, grand. Is there a logic you're following to decide what size parcels to split the MP into?

Hi, could you please explain why the inner residential areas aren't members of the multipolygon? I was just about to add a new area in Montpelier to the relation, but now I'm unsure whether I should or not!

Hi ceirios, looks like you've got yourself upside-down and mapped the stream valley as a mountain ridge. The stream, Afon Mihartach, is already mapped from an NPE import, and the small side "ridges" that you've mapped don't really meet the definition of a ridge - they're probably best left to be represented by contours. Might be best off just deleting the whole changeset?

Yes, very familiar with taginfo. The other objects were all created by a single user, spiregrain, using a different dataset, supplied by a different local authority. There are inconsistencies between the way that local authorities provide NaPTAN data. Some off these have been addressed by the UK community, but I can't see any guidance for the "~:Modification~" tags. I'll wait until I hear something from the UK public transport mapping community for some guidance before making any further changes.

Hi, could you point me to where the list of "standard keys" is maintained? I'm a little unfamiliar with the purpose of importing from the NaPTAN datasets, so I've just copied over what I guessed to be useful. 'ModificationDateTime' was the header in the Bristol NaPTAN data so I used that. Happy to change it if you can point me in the direction of some guidance (the wiki doesn't include this header)
On your second point, I have included the date, so I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say.