What is your source for the introduction of one way working at the SE end of Queen's Road?

I cannot find a traffic order reversing the direction of the one way working in Ryder Street. What is your source for this?

The traffic signals and crossings which you have deleted were added by mappers who are (a) local and (b) competent.

Please revert this changeset.

Why are you not listed in your bio or the list of Amazon contributors as such?

This isn't a dual carriageway, as the lane separation is mostly a painted area, not a physical barrier.

By all means split the carriageway around the crossing islands, but if you're going to do that you need to make sure that traffic signals, crossings and bus stops are mapped correctly.

Do you need any help to revert this changeset?

osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

Thanks for spotting and fixing that. Late last year, a mapper (who has now thankfully deleted their account) created a lot of egregious mapping for the renderer. Fixing it is taking a while, but @papaj and @jajanja3 are doing a pretty good job of it.

(Review requested)

Hi, thanks for updating your details. It looks fine to me.

Perhaps not so much a correction as a misunderstanding of what highway=cycleway means?

Thanks. There's also a proposed traffic order referring to Disraeli Walk. However, a source which definitely isn't compatible with OSM gives another name.

I added a note as well:
note/4607531

You accidentally dragged a railway switch in this changeset. Repaired in changeset/161937210

Hi, just to let you know that if a segment of highway already has cycleway:both=* or cycleway:left=* + cycleway:right=*, then a cycleway=yes tag is likely to conflict when data consumers try to process the way.

There's some documentation on the OpenStreetMap wiki here cycleway=*

Thanks - I should have spotted that when I last updated those roads. From the Bing street side imagery, it looks like the deleted segment may be a footway?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunately, the buildings which you merged do not actually overlap and the process of merging lost information about one of the buildings ( way/601848558/history )

You should be able to see the gap between the buildings in the Bing street side imagery here
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.537625%7E-0.042093&lvl=21.1&mo=om.1&pi=-8.7&style=x&dir=333.2

Are you absolutely certain that this crossing has reopened? I ran that way a few weeks ago and the temporary crossing (mapped to the NW) was still in use.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I'm afraid that you can't use the Royal Mail website's postcode finder as a source for OSM, as this breaches their copyright and is explicitly prohibited by their terms and conditions - https://www.royalmail.com/postcode-finder-term-conditions-en

You can use postcode centroids for some addresses, which are published by Ordnance Survey as OSM-compatible open data in their Code-Point Open product. These are available as an overlay in the iD editor which you are using.

There is more information on UK addressing and postcodes here - https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/

"No through road for public vehicles" is already covered by the motor_vehicle=private tag (although motor_vehicle=destination is closer to that description) and it's still a section of road rather than just a footpath. As the adjacent sections of Copped Hall have access=private, this section shouldn't have been reachable using most routing software - what are you using?

You "only just saw this" 5 months later?

Read the wiki. If you don't like an established and documented mapping style, render your own map tiles.

It might be worth adding the estimated width to the track/Dirtham Road. There's no guarantee that Tesla's satnav will pay any attention to this, but it might help others. est_width=*

Thanks!

Did you notice the was:highway=footway tag, or the fact that this was isn't currently connected to any other routable footways? Maybe there's a reason for that...

Thanks!