Nice! Obviously we can't use Google Maps as a data source (osm.wiki/Don%27t_copy_from_other_maps) but if you've got first-hand knowledge that construction is complete, I'll update the landuse of the area.

(And to follow up, if you've surveyed -- is this still an active construction area?)

Hello - good work. Does this changeset effectively resolve map note note/5273809 ?

Hey! Re the outline, the existing shape didn't seem to match the LiDAR footprint, so I made a best guess, but I hadn't found any useful guiding material like the document you've got.

And yus, I thought linking to the category might be more useful for the map users, but happy either way - sorry to create work for you!

Hello! It's really helpful to provide a changeset comment so other mappers know the general content/intent of your changes: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

It's also a courtesy to other mappers if you keep the geographical size of your change reasonably small and focused: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thank you.

I didn't get a chance to check the road numbering yesterday, but your speed limit changes are exactly correct - it goes down into a 30mph east of the roundabout and when joining from the A21, I guess because of the garage and businesses. I'll try to check the road numbering next time I'm there.

As this has been added as a node in subsequent changeset changeset/180420624, I've now removed the business name from addr:housename=* on the building area, and added address tags to that node: changeset/180443291

Thanks - my impression was that it was just the side road to Emmaus, but I'll check again in a few days.

Missed some source tags on this: source=streetlevel imagery;streetside;aerial imagery;OS OpenData StreetView;Public Rights of Way Layer;Strava Heat Maps;local knowledge;Cadastral Parcels

Hello - for Queensway Gateway and Whitworth Road, I've not spotted any signage indicating the change from 40mph to 30mph when entering from either the Queensway or Sedlescombe Rd N side. Is this new or very recently signed?

Hello - it's not clear to me why you've deleted the following buildings. They appear to exist and had URPNs assigned to them. If it's for geometry changes and misnaming/mistagging, please try and retain the history and the tags rather than deleting work.
* way/1338273618
* way/1338273625
* way/1338444481
* way/1338444483

Please also be careful to align your base layer with the cadastral parcel map and then draw building geometry based on the foot of the building, not the roof. Correcting this later is a lot more difficult than getting it right to begin with.

Thanks.

Hello! Please do add useful changeset comments when uploading changes: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#Why_should_I_use_Changeset_Comments?

Please also try to upload changes for different geographical areas in separate changesets to keep your bounding box smaller. I can see you've added a treet in South Korea and another in Ecuador. osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thank you!

Whoops, looks like this touched one of the members of the Hastings/St Leonards residential area multipolygon - sorry for large bounding box.

Nice. The overall work in Rye and a few nearby towns to fix the misalignment is going to be a huge job, but I applaud any move in that direction!

For context: this was added in July 2013 in changeset/17034685 without any source given at the time, but @Gregory Williams is still an active contributor to the map.

Thanks Jon. I think this still leaves us with a problem for permissible information with which to make a change in terms of intellectual property - something I've myself been corrected on in the past with respect to council planning docs.

I don't know enough here to advise, so you might need to take to the forums. There's a broad FAQ answer that's relevant, though: osm.wiki/FAQ#Why_don't_you_just_use_Google_Maps/whoever_for_your_data?

Apologies for the multiple comments. OS OpenMap Local, which should be accurate and up-to-date, has this branch as the B2090. I can also see that local authorities do refer to this branch as the B2090 in notices about roadworks. We can't use the latter as an information source, but I think it casts enough doubt that I'm going to revert this change until we have a convincing permissible source of information.

Quick note: the street signs on Bing Streetside (which is permissible) at both ends of Park Lane do indeed indicate that it's also part of the B2089 as you've suggested.

Hey - I'm not sure these are permissible sources for information? Especially the Ordnance Survey MasterMap. Please consult osm.wiki/Copyright_information_for_UK_mappers

I also note that this seems to have missed way/1085057069 (where Park Lane joins the A21) and way/98371276 (where it joins the B2089 westward).

Understood, but it does exist on the ground, has recently been used even if there's no permitted right of way as evidenced by Strava Heat Maps, and the tagging (with rskedgell's correction) does indicate that public use is not permitted. The tags right now recognise its existence, occasional usage, and the fact that it's private. Good routing applications will no longer send people along it.

There's a good page on the pros and cons here: osm.wiki/Illegal_paths