Hi @rskedgell,

Thank you very much for taking the time to visit the location in person for a detailed on-the-ground survey, and thank you very much for sharing it with me as I now understand the setting much better.

We consider public information such as the Westcombe Society website, as supporting references to confirm the user feedback we receive, but not as a single or a main source. Meaning, we don’t go forward with the edit if the feedback and the public boards have conflicting information.

Many thanks again for the engagement and your efforts to ensure a higher quality in my edits. Contributions like yours are always valuable to ensure map accurately reflects on-the-ground conditions, and also to ensure I develop to be a more experienced contributor.

Hi SomeoneElse,

To clarify, the feedback we received internally stated: “There is no path here; it needs to be removed from around [55.8943858, -4.6164967].”

TomTom staff is mainly considered trusted sources and unfortunately this was a rare case where the feedback was inaccurate, or the on-the-ground situations were misinterpreted by our colleague. For both internal and third-party feedback, this is definitely a reminder for all of our edits to always corroborate available resources and the local context accurately. Changeset reverted based on your feedback.

Thanks for raising this and for your constructive guidance.

Hi SomeoneElse, thank you for your feedback and sharing the resources regarding the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. The removal was due to us receiving user feedback, but I’m in full agreement on the availability of reliable imagery sources.
Changeset reverted to its previous state. I appreciate the guidance and effort taken to clarify this. I will make sure my teammates are also aware of the resources and insights you have shared with me for the area, and we will make sure to take it into consideration on our future edits.

Hi SomeoneElse, thank you for your valuable feedback. Writing good and effective changeset comments is a topic we are currently addressing within the team, and your message clearly demonstrates to me the value of this practice. I will use this as a learning and improvement opportunity to be a better editor.
For my edit, the task was originated from OSMOSE checks, and was part of the United States – Improving Road Data Quality (Los Angeles) project on MapRoulette. The footway and service road were not properly connected to each other and I connected the ways and added the appropriate highway=crossing tag to the shared node.
Thank you for your understanding and your kindness to reach out and ask.

Hi SomeoneElse
Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi SomeoneElse,
Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi rskedgell,
Based on parallel communications involving rajdhani and Chris Pankhurst in similar context, we are addressing these issues collectively at the moment. Your comments on car-centric edits are well noted, thank you very much for giving your valuable time and experience in communicating these. I will do my best to adopt this perspective in my future edits.

“Hi user_5589 and Cebderby,
Thank you for getting in touch and reverting the changeset. Your comments are duly noted. My intention is to collaborate constructively and avoid any future conflict. Thank you for your understanding.”

Hi Ismael Olea,

Thanks for your great feedback and sharing your local insights. I updated the map in changeset #174539766 based on your suggestions. Please take a look and let me know if they are OK.

Hi Ismael Olea,

Thank you very much for acknowledging this. I’m glad to expand my knowledge and understanding and always happy to improve the map.

Hi Jjyach,

Thank you for the clarification. Have a good day.

Hi Jjyach,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have made the edit because Cast Pebble Lane (way/921693076) is tagged as a private access road, suggesting the parking area would be private access as well. Changeset reverted to restore data to its previous state.
With your local knowledge, can you let me know if the private access tag on Cast Pebble Lane is incorrect and needs to get removed?

Hi mcliquid,
Thank you for reaching out. I have reverted the changeset to restore the previous version of the way. footway=designated tag was an oversight on my end.

Hi rskedgell,
Thank you for your valuable feedback. I’m going ahead and applying the current tagging scheme for streetside parking regulations: parking:both:restriction:conditional=no_parking @ (Mo-Fr 08:30-18:30)
For the access restrictions, we received user feedback saying Thorney Street should be restricted to residents only across its complete length, and I would be grateful to hear your input after checking the location physically.

Hi OSM_RogerWilco,
Thank you for your valuable feedback to point out the presence of a free text instead of a list of brands. After examining the situation further and going through the guidelines (brand=*) I think that having a free text within the tag would not be practical while searching. I would suggest the following tagging if you agree with it too:
brand = Renault
description = Alle fabrikate, spez. Renault
All the best.

I have made the change as an exception since there is geometric separation of road axes, and navigational guides would fail to notify the lane change in time.

Hi IEEE1164,

Thank you for your feedback on the recent edits I made to the access tags on this road. Changeset reverted as per the feedback so that the motor_vehicle=destination tag has been restored. Additionally, the unnecessary motor_vehicle restriction tag has been removed from the additional way.

Hi ion_chi,

Thank you for reverting the changeset and feedback. I will pay attention to check edits history and the latest references, going forward with my edits.