Hi, Old Incline is certainly not a residential road. It is a drivewazy which leads to one property.
It is only a single lane and is better mapped as a service road.
Motor vehicle access is for the property only and should be tagged as private.
There is no on the ground evidence of such a name and I can find no license compatable souce for this name.

Cheers Phil

The property is wooded, the natural=wood has nothing to do with ownership, or access and overlapping the wood with residential is the normal way to map in OSM.

Cheers Phil

Hi, the Eurostar Terminal is not a separate station, it is part of Bruxelles Midi.
In OSM there is a rule one real life object = one OSM object. This is a duplication.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has gone rather wrong. You have added a large residential area that covers large areas that are not residential.
Please do not do that, objects in OSM should reflect real world objects. You have covered farmland and other landuses.

I have removed this object, maybe if you want to display a map of your coverage area something such http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ is probably the way to achieve that.

Cheers Phil

The terms and conditions do say 'We are often willing to share this content but please check with us first before you use anything from this website.'
You do need to check whether they are prepared to license it for inclusion in OpenStreetMap and not simply for personal use.

Cheers Phil

You state your source as map on website, please could you provide a bit more detail. Also what license is this data released under?

Cheers Phil

I have just checked both OSRM and Graphhopper (on osm.org) allows turns in all directions at this junction.

HTH Phil

Hi, thank you for your edit.

The correct way to tag something as disused is not to change the name, a post office will still be found in a search, but to change the top level tag so in this case disused:amenity=post_office.
However if it no longer has the signs in place it is better to simply remove it.

Cheers Phil

Hi, thank you for your edit however I have one question.

Whilst it is clear cannot travel between Garson Way and the unnamed road you have split, can pedestrians cross that gap?

If so please connect them with a short footway.

Cheers Phil

There were no turn restrictions previously mapped here, what app are you using that would not allow such a turn?

I have removed this incorrect relation.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM and thank you for your edit, however this edit looks a bit odd. This is very odd place to find a turning circle, the buildings are too close for such a feature and I cannot see it on imagery. Is a turning circle really what you intended to map?

Also please make your changesets meaningful and describe what you intended, Cool tells me nothing.

Cheers Phil

Thank you. It was the fact you added names which can only be added from a survey and yhe global spread of such changesets that made me suspicious.

More meaningful comments as to sources and changeset comments that reflect what you were adding would be very useful.

Cheers Phil

Thank you, I hadn't sootted the node being deleted.

Cheers Phil

Hi, what of the source of the names you have added? You cannot have got them from bing aerial imagery.
Cheers Phil

Hello, thank you for you edit however a couple of questions.
1. What source did you use to add Filtermist International?
2. Why did you delete way/31176755?
Cheers Phil

Please update you sources and imagery used to reflect what you have used on each changeset, listing everything you may use is unhelpful. You have certainly not used any of Bing Streetside;Mapillary Images;Mapillary Signs;OpenStreetCam Images on this changeset.

Cheers Phil

Please update you sources and imagery used to reflect what you have used on each changeset, listing everything you may use is unhelpful. You have certainly not used any of Bing Streetside;Mapillary Images;Mapillary Signs;OpenStreetCam Images on this changeset.

Cheers Phil

It does not need to be approved, but takes time to render on the main map.

The editor only shows the outline of objects, that is intentional.

Hi, thank you for your response.

It is not a good idea to map things that are only planned.

You mapping was very suspicious as you have mapped multiple ponds in the same place.

I do find it difficult to believe that part of the school would have been demolished to build an extremely large pond, it is larger than most swimming pools.

Hi, welcome to OSM. Adding objects that do not exist is not helpful. In both of you changesets you have added ponds where there are buildings in reality.

I have reverted both changesets.