Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The way mentioned is adjacent to way/662332132/history/2, which is also surface=paving_stones tagged by another user. As well as this way: way/1024398493/history/2. More than likely, VLD292 was trying to follow the OSM tags of the adjacent footways. Just providing some perspective on what most likely happened in this instance. This, however, does not negate the importance of verification, which I talk about in this post: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-walkabout-london-complex-intersections-pedestrian-mapping-initiative/134887/5

We do have this OSM TM project shared on our organisation wiki, and I'm more than happy to follow-up in the OSM UK channel.

Hello everyone - In my validation process, one of the issues is the separately mapped sidewalks along residential roads. In our guidelines, we have iterated (based on local mapping practices) these sidewalks should not be mapped separately. Our team is in the process of reverting the sidewalks.

Thank you for this update, rskedgell. Our team is reviewing the complete edit history. The reported account is archived, but I'm more than happy to correspond with DWG as needed. We appreciate your local expertise. Thank you for extending your time and contributions to OSM.

Thank you for this update, Udarian. We will continue to work around areas that are not intersecting/overlapping the geojson you provided on github.

Hello - for way/104367105: Is this the name or just the description? If it is the description please use the description tag instead.

Hi Spring Dream - just want to verify the name:en tag 'Oke Shit Kone.' Is this the proper English name for the community? Thank you so much

Hello,

We were looking for cases that might need annotation, but our query had a bug which resulted in bringing in roads located in Belgium. If necessary, we're happy to revert these changes. Please let us know how to proceed.

Thank you again, and happy mapping.

Hi osminng - Hope you are doing well. Some of your edits are creating duplicate ways. For example, way/340181893 and way/857933717. This returns a validation error in Josm "Duplicated Ways." Please take a closer look at some of your recent edits to make sure they are not creating these duplications. Happy mapping and have a great day.

Adding to the discussion here for more context. The OSM wiki for unmarked crossings states, "Some states have laws that establish an implied crossing on every side of every intersection by default[1] or wherever one is implied by a sidewalk flanking the intersection,[2] unless otherwise prohibited by a regulatory sign. This can technically result in very unsafe crossings that most people would not recognize as crossings, such as across a busy four-lane road without any pedestrian infrastructure. It would be reasonable to omit such crossings in favor of safer ones." This edit seems to align with the OSM wiki. Please feel free to add to the discussion! We are open to feedback and happy to revert if others feel that this should remain an unmarked crossing.

I am interested in hearing what others may think of way/1231885078. The OSM wiki on crossing = unmarked gives an example of a busy 4-lane road. It states that it is reasonable to omit the crossing = unmarked tag because it would be dangerous for some to cross here (even if legally acceptable). I understand that this is technically a legal crossing, but would this be an acceptable instance where crossing = informal or informal = yes should be applied? For reference, "Some states have laws that establish an implied crossing on every side of every intersection by default[1] or wherever one is implied by a sidewalk flanking the intersection,[2] unless otherwise prohibited by a regulatory sign. This can technically result in very unsafe crossings that most people would not recognize as crossings, such as across a busy four-lane road without any pedestrian infrastructure. It would be reasonable to omit such crossings in favor of safer ones." crossing=unmarked

[continued from original comment on changeset] Updated the crossings to unmarked based on helpful feedback from community. In Seattle, when the sidewalks extend all the way to the end of the curb like in this changeset, this is both a legal crossing and the designated pedestrian infrastructure for the crossing.

Thank you for the update on this one. Please feel free to message me if there are similar instances where there is a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line. We'll fix it by copying the syntax you used in this one.

Hi MatthewAndersonUS80! Thank you for your contributions to OSM. When adding coastline ways, the direction of the way should be counter clockwise: natural=coastline. Also, can you provide more insight on the line = yes tag used on many of the coastline ways? Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you!

Hi Kavithaptpm! Thank you for your OSM contributions. way/1120516120 and 1054630233 are not closed and break relation/241509. I have some ideas on how to fix it, but I wanted to reach out to you first in case you have a preferred solution you would rather apply. Thank you!

Unable to verify Suphai Island in Bing, Esri World Imagery, Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta, Mapbox Satellite, or Maxar Premium Imagery. Reached out to the original editor for verification, but no response. If this delete is an error, please revert the changeset and indicate the imagery used to verify the islet. This helps increase provenance. Thank you!

Hi dru1138,
I've taken a look at the coastline way/1104213497. The sandy beach area intersects the coastline way, and the bare rock area does not accurately match aerial imagery. What source was used to digitize these features? Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you!

Hello dededaj158,

Thank you for your edit. I am unable to find Suphai Island. What source was used for this edit? Looking forward to hearing from you.

Hello Kensou023,

I saw that you had made several edits in this area. Some of these objects that were digitized spelled out a word, a drawing of a Pokemon, and a heart shaped lake. These features were removed as they do not match any available imagery set in OSM. May I ask what you based these edits off of?

Thank you for your time.

Hi Matthew! Can you explain the purpose of Way: 146018637? Thank you so much!