No street name. Conditional is broken. Did you really survey this? Did you add a note for local mappers to check it?

This seems that you are "tagging for the renderer". track would normally be for ways that vehicles (maybe tractors, or 4x4's) could use. path is just for non-motorised transport - foot, bicycle and horse.

What was changed? The comment's not very clear.

What was changed? The comment's not very clear.

What was changed? The comment's not very clear.

What was changed? The comment's not very clear.

Only one short section is one way -- on Bing Streetside.

Remove restrictions - added oneway as visible on Bing Streetside.

Looks like the salon was added twice and some roads got dragged about a bit - will try to fix.

A more detailed changeset comment would be great - and help other local mappers.

You seem to have added 4 new universities to Bristol which seems odd - and removed buidling tags from buildings which again seems odd.

I'm going to tweak the name and add the building tags back. I'll try and find a better tagging mechanism on the OSM wiki, or maybe you can find one.

removed a footpath to avoid the mini-roundabout https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=f8d63762-95a8-496b-97b5-5b15c4a251cf&cp=51.507332~-2.630896&lvl=19&dir=260.5512&pi=-1.4445857&style=x&mo=om.1~z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 Other modifications seem ok.

98470703 seems problematic in that motorists will have less/no time to turn due to the elongated road-marking influenced joins.

Will revert back to the previous version that followed
osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways

98466310 - removes oneway (although markings suggest they should be oneway - in the same exit direction -- although Bing car seems to drive in?) https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=4f042376-e4ca-4694-a761-a708eb764658&cp=51.491744~-2.679992&lvl=19&dir=305.23654&pi=-24.748507&style=x&mo=om.1~z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027

Given that the inside lanes have no give way -- that would at least make this junction=circular?

There must be a way to map this without requiring entrance onto the roundabout.

This is incorrect as this removes any way of avoiding the roundabout -- which is what the inside 2 lanes are for https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=ff2b1106-3af2-42d7-8f9d-a79a6b075137&cp=51.497792~-2.690791&lvl=19&dir=303.62515&pi=-22.17843&style=x&mo=om.1~z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027

I've unglued the political boundary from the service road.

This now seems to incorrectly allow a right turn from Rownham Hill to Bridge Road (see double white lines https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=0ebb4649-a299-4e13-8e13-a87d46e19b81&cp=51.451654~-2.636361&lvl=19&dir=265.55078&pi=-10.58628&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027). The crossings no longer have a highway tag. Turn restrictions related to the island don't seem to actually be signed.

I've added back the oneway that applies to most motor vehicles.

However, osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways says "If a road has a small traffic island (eg at the approach to a large roundabout) should this be represented as a triangle or not? How big should it be before it should be drawn?

You can draw it or not, there is no limit below which it cannot be done, but the longer the separation is, the more likely someone will convert it into a dual carriageway and split the highway. Generally it is done."

It is possible that small gaps, e.g. < 1 typical car length might be mapped with a node -- provided that routing is not adversely affected.