As always, thank you for your good work on the map.

What are these realignments based on, and are you sure they are more accurate than the previous routes?

Writing changeset comments longer than two words helps reviewers understand your reasoning: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Again, the description "track" makes these changes hard to understand and review.

Please remember to write helpful, descriptive changeset comments. This modifies eight different ways and adds four, but the description "track" makes it hard for reviewers to understand what you did and why you did it: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Your changeset comment should describe the details of the changes you made, not describe who you are or any other corporate blurb:
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Please encourage your managers at Uber to help mappers like you write more useful changeset comments.

Are you sure the two new roads you added are best described as service roads and not residential roads?

Aerial photography suggests the existing footpath you modified no longer follows the mapped route due to a construction site that incorporates the roads you added.

Thank you, that makes sense. I didn't check as thoroughly as I might have.

I have left a comment on changeset/173961876 to try to understand why these tags exist: it seems worth checking instead of leaving the tags in place just in case they make sense.

Thank you for your helpful work improving the map.

I notice these changes add "intermittent=yes" to way/760195916/history/54 where it seems to make no sense. I assume this is a mistake, but wanted to check.

I noticed this following discussion on changeset/174577957

Two of the ways you created are tagged as "intermittent=yes": way/1450117343 and way/760195916

This seems confusing as they have no other tags. What is intermittent about them?

Thank you for all your helpful work improving the map.

I see you have added lots of names to OSM from OS OpenData StreetView. In several areas I know well, StreetView uses names that nobody uses or sometimes exist in the wrong place.

I encourage you to add names from StreetView where you know they are used today, but suggest avoiding adding names without checking that they make sense in the real world.

Hi,

I've taken my time to reply because it's a complicated and controversial issue: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/post-towns-and-addr-city/137896/7

There's some use of addr:suburb in Saddleworth: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gjt

And some use of addr:village: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gju

I suspect it's one of those aspects of OSM where we have to live with the inconsistency.

Thanks for that.

The bridge / tunnel situation is an odd one but I would keep the current tagging. Standing on the pavement looking south-east it feels like I'm standing on a bridge, and looking at the canal going underneath it looks like a tunnel. I wouldn't object to the tags changing though.

Thank you for improving the map.

I agree there is no evidence of the road having a name, but if I heard the name "Hopton and Carson Bypass" I would assume it refers to this road.

Maybe tagging it as a "loc_name" makes sense osm.wiki/Names#Local_names_(loc_name)

Have you considered asking Rufus Green who added this name in way/39989117/history/13 ?

Again, thank you for your work on the map, but I find these changes confusing.

Your description claims you have corrected a speed limit and a crossing, but you have also added five new footpaths and mistakenly tagged them as public footpaths.

You have also incorrectly added these new footpaths to the GM Ringway Stage 9 walking route.

It's frustrating that you haven't replied to my previous comments, but I hope you will reply to this explaining your reasoning.

Thank you for your helpful work on the map.

This change affects a lot of different things, so it would be very helpful if you had written a more detailed description than the name of the area listing everything you intended to change. This would make the changes easier to review and assess.

Again, thank you for your good work.

I'm unsure that tagging Delph as a suburb of Oldham makes sense.

I realise Royal Mail classify the Saddleworth villages as part of Oldham for their own logistical reasons, that also cause them to classify these villages as part of Lancashire.

See changeset/161137917 and changeset/161137994 for similar discussions.

What do you think?

Thank you for adding helpful detail to the map.

However, there's a fair amount of change here, and I'm fairly sure some of it is wrong.

You have changed the speed limit for the bridge over the canal at way/8549230 from 20mph to 30mph. I'm fairly sure the speed limit signs are on the south side of the bridge, so the old value is correct.

You have tagged way/316893046 as a 20mph street citing a "Sign at south". I'm fairly sure there is no speed limit sign on what is effectively a parking aisle.

Thank you for all your helpful work on OpenStreetMap.

You have described these changes as "speed limits" but they include much more than that: you have also tagged a few footways as "bicycle=no".

Please describe your changes accurately to help communicate with other mappers: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thank you for all your helpful work on OpenStreetMap. You have made several edits recently with the identical description "minor fixes".

It would be very helpful for other mappers if you could describe what these fixes involve and why they make sense: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thank you for all your helpful work improving the map.

This hotel was already mapped at way/689008682 before you added it agin.

Please try to avoid adding duplicate features to the map: osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Thank you for your helpful work improving the map.

I notice you have tagged two ways for Briscoe Lane in this change as "sidewalk:both:surface=traffic_island" which seems odd as "traffic_island" seems like a confusing value for a "surface" to me.

Is this a mistake or does the value have some meaning I haven't worked out?

The ways are way/1424065428 and way/697319897

Thank you, I hadn't noticed that. I'll ask the mapper who originally added them.