* which need re-reviewing

*landuse

Hi Jarv, I did it as it makes it a lot easier to handle the situation where it crosses a traffic island every 200 meters or so, especially as the path on the traffic island is of a "Z" shape. There is a lane-wide hatched area down the full length of this stretch, which whilst isn't a physical barrier, is still significant enough to split for the sake of better data.

Sure, but we map for good data and not for the renderer. I'd suggest making a PR to get the standard map to show corridors.

Hi, what does this note mean? node/380442025/history/7

Thank you, I appreciate that!

Usually, yes, but it's possible I might have forgotten to in this instance. The imagery quality wasn't great.

And not the A6 either

That's A590, sorry

And no problem, I'm doing all the A roads until I get bored. Obviously, it's not perfect, but I don't let perfect by the enemy of good.

Noted, I'll do that

Similarly, if two crossings nodes are separate, such as when a road splits in two around a traffic island, neither of them should have the crossing island tag because that's implied by them being separate nodes.

To quote the wiki: On a pedestrian crossing highway=crossing, when the tactile paving is used in a line all across the crossing. Do not use tactile_paving=* on the way when only the two spots where the footway ends are paved differently.

Actually in Austria, and I'm sure other places, tactile paving is used along the full length of the crossing. On the tag page for it, it does explicitly say not to use it on ways if it's only on the edges.

tactile_paving=*

Heads up that `tactile_paving=yes` on a crossing way (highway=footway + footway=crossing) means tactile paving along the full length of the way, and not just at the edges. I saw you tagged a crossing with yes when it's actually no

Seems we were both editing the road at the same time, I'll do the cleanup :)

A lot of landuses along the A5 in the area are connected or nearly connected to the road, needs fixing. I fixed some but it's a lot of work

All reverted changeset/154850603

DaveF kindly pointed out that the note I removed had value to prevent accidents, so I reverted my edits which removed them.

changeset/154825044

Oh, sorry about that! I will revert my edits which removed them :)