The network of service roads that you added between Cartwright Street and Talbot Road have no access= restrictions on them. They go through the middle of an industrial area on private land. Routers such as OSRM and GraphHopper (see the osm.org/ home page if you don't know them) are unhelpfully sending pedestrians along these roads. Please use suitable access= tags when adding roads like this.

It seems odd to add these "service roads" without the car parks that they provide access to. It makes the map look strange to someone with local knowledge, and might confuse people who don't know the area.

Thank you for helping to improve the map. I don't know this area, but it looks like your change fixes note/1792887

Thanks for adding the note: I walked along here yesterday and noticed the path is on the other side of the hedge, so I've fixed that in changeset/84974694

Thank you. I think it's important to look at the surrounding map whenever you make your edits. In this case it seems strange to have a non-private track only reachable by a private track, so I'm pleased you have fixed this. Also, there's no need to create a new way when you could easily extend an existing way: way/780408078 could have been a continuation of way/222071788 for example.

What's the reason for this change? Given that way/222071788 is a private track and it's the only way of reaching these two tracks, why does it make sense to remove "access=private" from them both?

Hi, thank you for these improvements. I walked near here yesterday and have left way/779370307 that you added in place although I didn't see an obvious way for the footpath to head through Fields Farm. It's possible I missed the path, so I'm considering adding a note to suggest a further check, but you might know the area well so I decided to ask first. What do you think?

Thank for for helping to improve the map. Kensington Palace is already mapped at relation/904705 so I've deleted this duplicate node.

Thank for for helping to improve the map. Kensington Palace is already mapped at relation/904705 so I've deleted this duplicate node.

Thanks for confirming. I've improved the tagging of this byway in changeset/81546306.

Thanks, I didn't want to change it myself just in case it was intentional.

Hi, thanks for your quick reply. service=drive-through seems like an odd tag to use as there's no drive-through there. Also, are you sure there's a 10mph speed limit? I haven't been along all of this road, but I didn't notice speed limit signs anywhere.

I just realised I shared an unhelpful link in my previous comment. Apologies, I meant to share disused=*:

Hi, thank you for these improvements. I notice you've tagged way/111371682 as service=drive-through which seems like a mistake.

I suspect that way/77428973 should be highway=service rather than highway=secondary - does this seem reasonable?

Yes, and this changeset added the Red Lion car park but tagged it as the public car park which I've fixed since leaving my comment: node/5718515077/history

Thanks, I didn't check the history carefully enough. The mapper who entered that name has been inactive for two years, so I've opened a note at note/2093029 - I was in the area yesterday but I don't know it well myself.

Hi, I suspect "Barrow Clogh Wood" at way/53747823 is a typo for "Barrow Clough Wood" but I'm uncertain.

Thank you for editing the map, but this seems to be a duplicate of the pub already mapped at way/364768722 - it's probably best to delete it.

I've removed duplicate nodes for the church and pub here and tried to merge the information onto the ways. I hope I've tagged everything correctly: changeset/80921346.