Cheers

The old layout on the map had the 'exit' side in line with the traffic light junction and the two-way bit, and the 'entry' side coming off Highwood Road further northeast, and forming a rectangle. The Mapillary photo I linked to earlier shows the centre divider is in line with the traffic light junction, so I've joined the two ends to form a single junction at the lights, and at the other end, this photo: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.52666961313366&lng=-2.5858083274239334&z=17.620163690018412&pKey=RIn6mqyUUPPhPZ6Ypvaw7g&focus=photo
shows the centre divider is in line with the two-way section, so I've moved the join point into the middle. That same photo also shows there's a 'U' shaped end to the split section, rather than right-angles.

It's all fresh kerbs and tarmac, so may have changed from how it was laid out originally.

The one bit that does need a re-survey is where the cyclepaths run; the crossing were originally marked as puffins, but you can see the signals are pedestrian+bicycles, so I've changed them to toucans and have retagged some of the connected footpaths as cyclepaths, but it's incomplete and I suspect some bits may have moved around anyway.

Also, if you're re-surveying, the bus bit of Highwood Road is tagged as 20mph, but from the photos there's no 20mph sign at the traffic lights (where it's 30mph). I haven't changed it or untagged it, as there may well be a sign just a smidge further up the road out of camera shot, but worth checking if you're passing.

Cheers.

Hiya. Which bits? I did the loop from Coniston Road - photos on Mapillary if it helps: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.527178394656175&lng=-2.586732851343754&z=17&pKey=FfR3eSKtSQIgb3cVzTj7Mw&focus=photo

Hi - they were just reminders to myself that those buildings are joined together; I'll delete them when I trace the buildings off new imagery.

Hi
Thanks for adding that. If you know the legal status of a path from a survey, it would be great if you could also add a designation tag, e.g.: designation=public_footpath
See designation=* for more options.
Cheers!

Hmm, no; there's nothing set at a lower level than can be queried from the database or examined in the planet dump, and besides, incomplete data is the norm (building get traced from imagery, addresses get added from surveys, postcodes come along later from other sources of info); it's rare to be able to add everything at once.
A little bit of research on Nominatim reveals this: osm.wiki/Nominatim/FAQ#How_was_the_address_calculated.3F
which is worth reading, in particular the section on (lack of) postcode support.
To reiterate - this is not a problem with how the houses are mapped or tagged, it's just one less-than-perfect tool you're using to look at the data.
The best thing to do is to carry on mapping, carry on adding postcodes to houses wherever we know them, and not to worry about what comes out of Nominatim.
Happy mapping.

I think you misunderstand - the postcodes aren't coming from me or any tool I'm using.
Where they're coming from is a tool *you're* using - namely OpenStreetMap Nominatim - when you click on "Show address". It's guessing the postcode (incorrectly) from the nearest building with a postcode it can find. If you use "Query features" rather than "Show address", you'll see the actual data for the building.
The incorrect postcodes you're seeing through "Show address" are purely best guesses generated for you when you use the Nominatim tool.

That appears to be picking up the nearest postcode it can find, which is that house on Charles Close. You get the same when clicking on the farm buildings just to the north.

The actual data is correct (or rather, it's not incorrect) - the houses on Otter Way do not have any postcodes set.

Easiest way to fix, I imagine, is to add postcodes to any properties you know them for. Just add an "addr:postcode" tag with the correct value.

Not sure what you mean. None of the houses have any postcode set that I can see, and the only thing tagged "BS35 1LN" is one house in Charles Close.
Have you got an example of the problem?

Cheers. Just paranoid about details being copied from OS maps.

As per OS map? As in an old, out-of-copyright OS map, or a current, copyright, whatever-you-do-don't-copy-from-this-into-Openstreetmap map?

Hi
There's a pillar box already mapped about 50m further up Windmill Lane. Is this new one a duplicate, or is the original mispositioned?
Cheers

Hi
I've reverted this (and the previous) changeset that changed the cyclepath into a duplicate Jenner Bvd, as I'm guessing that wasn't the intention.
Cheers

Just to let you know I've reverted the changes to the M4 - it was hole-less.
Cheers

Hi
Thanks for adding these footpaths. If they're public footpaths (legally designated as such and marked with a public footpath sign), you can add designation=public_footpath. See designation=* for other rights-of-way options.
Cheers

Hi
I have partially reverted this changeset, as it deleted one bus stop and merged the other into the post box (so we had a bus stop with operator=Royal Mail)
Cheers

Hi
This has changed a playground into a wood called 'Jubilee Tree'. Is that intentional?
Cheers

Just add access=private
More info on access tags here: access=*

Have reverted the deletions and updated tags.

Similarly, looking at the not-a-building, it's clear someone has mistagged a tennis court. Again, better to fix the tagging than deleting (or drop a note on the map if it's something you're not sure how to fix yourself).