Thanks Mike, it was an error on my part.
The path is built, but fenced off. I'm not actually sure if it will be a cycle path, it was just a tag copy/paste mistake, have resolved now

Should the Queensferry Crossing towers and bridge outline now be moved to align with the road carriageways, which are presumably from GPS?

Note also that the tram on York Place has been operational for several years now, and the extension down Leith Walk isn't yet approved.
The construction work here relates to the redevelopment of Picardy Place as part of the ongoing St James Centre redevelopment

This road has been open for some time. I've made a few updates to the temporary arrangements based on the current state

Thanks Mike, I assume you mean for routing foot=yes overrides access=no. Are you suggesting that I should change the bicycle=yes and foot=yes tags? Should these also be set to no, or removed?

I discussed this in the pub with Eric from MESH quite a while ago, and he agreed it maybe wasn't the best way to do it, but it's never been changed so I decided just to do so

Thanks for flagging this up Robert, it was unintentional, and in error. I have deleted the duplicate and made the edit to the original node.

I suspect this was a very rough route, difficult to get a car down, which was why I mapped as a track. I don't think all tracks need be for agricultural use. But feel free to change if you have more recent information, it was 5 years ago I mapped this.

As per discussion at note/552859

I think I mapped this section originally, and at the time I didn't realise it was a private drive. As Chris says, we try and map the world as it exists on the ground, including access rights where these are known. It is quite easy to add that this is a private section.

I appreciate your concerns Dan with this being the only private drive mapped on the development. It would be great if you could contribute your local knowledge and help to map this area in more detail. There are other areas of Edinburgh which every driveway has been mapped (e.g. Oaklands Square in Brromhouse, osm.org/#map=19/55.92782/-3.27572), and most of the central area now has every garden mapped, so I hope tis shows this is not targeting you specifically.

There were a whole lot more pavilions that got erroneously added in this changeset, and the revert plugin didn't seem to pick them up, so I have manually deleted them in changeset/46196020

I think something went wrong with this edit, as Way: Jessfield Bowling Club (474410581) appeared in Drummond Place in the New town

Please consider reverting the changes that make the large area of railway landuse. I don't think it is appropriate to tag railway tunnels with landuse=railway, especially where there are overlapping uses of the land above

This was meant to be building=house, but must have been a glitch when editing, have changed now. Thanks for flagging up

GerdP - thanks for fixing/highlighting this. I was using ID, but have now fixed the unconnected nodes in JOSM.
Turns out that ID isn't ideal for this type of edit

I have added start_dates for the railway relation and all the stations.

I'm not sure whether they should be rendered or not, but thought I would ask the question

Construction might be complete, but the station doesn't open for another 2-3 months. Not sure if it should be marked as a station yet?

Many of the walls that are being added by these changesets are actually fences, or no longer exist at all.

I have removed ones I know for a fact do not exist in changeset/31266709

You got there just before me. Have tweaked some of the geometry and added a few more features from my survey, hope it doesn't conflict with yours.
changeset/31197898

Wrong comment - should be "Landuse and details around Wormit"