Fair enough, I'll change these nodes back to natural=fell. Thanks for the advice.

Also, the ID editor (which I know isn't perfect!) suggested that natural=fell should be a polygon not a node.

Hi, I saw Scales Fell to the east is tagged as a locality, and Blease Fell to the west is tagged as a natural peak. I didn't think tagging Hall's Fell (and Gategill Fell and Doddick Fell) as peaks was appropriate as at all 3 nodes, the land slopes upwards towards Blencathra. So I thought changing the tags to match Scales Fell would be more appropriate. But I'd be happy to change these 3 nodes back to natural=fell. Many thanks, mot_tom

Hi Russ, I'm pretty sure these roads are connected.

The plan is shown on this map though I'll admit it's not very clear [https://www.elor.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ELOR-A64-Junction-Overview.pdf].

There's also been lots of discussion on the Sabre forum about this junction eg [https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7384&start=20], and looks like the consensus there is that there aren't any bridges at this junction.

Happy to be corrected.
mot_tom

Hi Andy, thanks for pointing this out, I've removed these isolated sections in this changeset, can't believe I forgot to check the old route fully! Thanks, mot_tom

Hi, that makes sense, I'll make those edits later this week when I've got some free time. Thanks for the advice.

Hi DaveF,
This way is meant to show how the railway (including the current station, the disused parts to the east, and the Metrolink line/High Level Road) are elevated above the surrounding area. If you think this should be shown differently on the map, I'd be happy to edit this (eg separate sections).
Thanks, mot_tom

Hi gomedia91,
According to Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4232_road], the A4232 is only a trunk road between M4 J33 and Culverhouse Cross, therefore only this part of the road should be tagged as highway=trunk as per UK road tagging guidelines [osm.wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom]. For the rest of its length, it's a primary route so should be tagged as highway=primary. Therefore, I'm not sure what you've done in this changeset is correct.
Hope the above links help, all the best, mot_tom

Hi tomhukins, I didn't receive a response from the original editor. Seeing as I don't know the area, I'd err on the side of caution, but equally if you saw no evidence of the path on your recent visit, maybe it should be removed. I don't know! Sorry I can't be more helpful.
All the best, mot_tom

Hi joegregory,
Just wondering why the residential area around Splott [way/259661830] was deleted in this changeset? I'm not from the area, but from aerial imagery, it looks residential.
Many thanks in advance, mot_tom

Hi JezCrow,
Woops, I changed this street to a track, but seeing as this was an incorrect edit based on older impagery, I've rectified this in this changeset [changeset/87516290]. Thanks for pointing this out to me, and happy mapping to you too!
mot_tom

Hi DysguDdraig, welcome to OpenStreetMap! There are a few errors in this changeset that I'll point out just so you don't make them again! Firstly, Rhodfa Abernedd should be highway=proposed rather than highway=primary as it isn't built yet, I've edited that for you in this changeset [changeset/84211871]. Secondly, adding place names to residential areas when place names are already mapped is discouraged, as explained with other things in this wiki article [osm.wiki/Good_practice]. For example,Taibach was already mapped at [node/123573649] so adding the name to the surrounding residential area is unnecessary. Thirdly, I'd recommend reading this wiki article on multilingual names [osm.wiki/Multilingual_names]. I'm not from this area so I don't know if certain features (roads, rivers, railways, places etc.) are better mapped with their English or Welsh names, therefore I won't revert any of these edits. But this is definitely something to consider both for these edits and in future.
All the best! mot_tom

Hi CamelCaseNick
Woops, that was a mistake, I'll change that back ASAP, apologies! Thanks for spotting
mot_tom

Hi InstinctUK, I've noticed that several of the sidewalks and subsequent fords you've added in this changeset don't seem to exist in aerial imagery, for example those adjacent to the A4058 (www.openstreetmap.org/way/677852963 and way/677852963). If you added these using local knowledge, then I apologise for questioning these edits, I'm not from this area so cannot verify the existence of these features.
Thanks, mot_tom

Hi Benny Goodman. I've used multipolygons as I find them easier to manipulate in iD editor, but now that I think about it, that's not a reasonable explanation! I'll edit these ways shortly. Thanks, mot_tom

Hi Dalesman, I noticed that in this changeset, some of the tagging was slightly incorrect, as by adding a highway=path tag to an area (such as the nature reserve), OSM interprets that as meaning that the path as an area, so the whole of the nature reserve was rendered in a similar colour to a town square! I've fixed this error in this changeset (changeset/57912073#map=14/53.5900/0.1187) and I assumed that you meant to create a path that runs around the perimeter of the nature reserve. Is this correct or have I misunderstood? All the best, mot_tom

Admitedly not, I'll do that now

Hi RhodimusPrime
Having looked on Bing maps, it seems like there's a building here, so I'm a little confused as to why you've added a footpath here. I've edited this footpath way to become a building, but if this is incorrect by all means correct it. Many thanks, mot_tom

Hi DaveF
Thanks for the tips, I'll bear them in mind in future edits, apologies for the mistakes made here

D'oh! Thanks for that, I've edited them both to highway=footway as they should be