Thanks. You've certainly done a better job of retaining your changes plus mine than I would have!
I'll look into what to do with them when I have chance. I've always believed there's value in mapping the plots, as that's what an address is, rather than just the house, much like a school should be its whole grounds rather than just a node near the entrance (though I can see no value in adding an address to a plot or large area).
Over the years of mapping them, others have left comments asking me to do it differently, and settling on landuse=residential was a result of being told that's what I should be doing. But I'll see what makes most sense now. Probably starting to add fences where there are some (obviously not just adding barrier=fence to the plot of course).

I wasn't aware of the discussion, but skimming through it now I conclude two things:
-- that there was no consensus other than that a majority (if 18 people can be considered a majority of anything) think landuse=residential isn't the ideal tag.
--And that you were not going to delete anything, just allow retagging.
Yet you've deleted all the areas so please reinstate them and I will retag.

Hi. Why have you done this? It took significant work to generate the individual residential areas and you've simply deleted them. The tagging was agreed after discussion with several other editors, but if you believe they should be tagged differently then open that discussion, not just delete others' work. Please undo your deletion.

Ooh, I don't know. I think they have merit as separate relations given that there were 19th century acts explicitly to remove the detached parts of counties. There is thus some disagreement on whether the traditional counties include the detached parts or not.

The traditional county boundaries. Since 1880s they're no longer the administrative boundaries, but they're still retained as the original geographic counties. See eg here for an example of their usage. https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/3a75496e-406b-4e4d-826a-7fa582c4dbeb/counties-december-1921-boundaries-ew-bgc

I believe I've corrected that set of drains/streams now, but do correct any others you come across. Thanks for flagging them.

I have no reason to believe that any of the streams flow uphill, no : )

You're right, it clearly flows into the Granta, I must just have missed checking the direction when it was added. Please do correct it.

I'm sure you're right, but that's not my tag. If I made the last change I'm betting it was just to change an existing node to a way. Please do update the tags as fits best.

You're correct and I wasn't happy with that. All of those tags were actually on the building that is number 9, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt in case there's an extension to 11 that runs behind 9 as there's an alley as well.
And leaving it as a way was laziness on my part as I've never known how to reduce a way to a node in Potlatch2.
But I've turned it to a node and removed the craft tag. I'll have a look to see where it is next time I'm on King's Parade.

Well, I disagree with that statement, as does the wiki and the many thousands of existing instances of road relations. In this case it was done as part of the Wikidata tagging project, and unless you're proposing tagging every way (or an arbitrary one of them) with the Wikidata ID then surely the relation serves the same purpose as it does for relations for any other linear feature such as notable footpaths, rivers, or indeed any area relation. The alternative is an Overpass query, beyond the means of most external users, and even then selecting ref=M1 will match three distinct roads in the British Isles alone.

I only added the A431 as I inadvertently selected much of its length when doing the same for the A4, but I suspect you're saying the A4 doesn't merit one either.

As for the name, I've no strong feeling there, but always go with the prevailing existing case and the vast majority of UK road relations have that format as the name. For these things uniformity of tagging is more important, but if a mass edit were agreed then I've no issue with that at all.

But please when commenting do try to adopt a more constructive, less unequivocal tone. Many a less-experienced mapper than myself would well just give up in the face of such a review of their well-meaning edits.

Your changeset/108198547. You've entirely deleted a mass of additions I made! Can you re-add them please. My change you reverted had finished subdividing that res area so there was no duplication!

It's only duplicated because you reverted my change where I completed the sub-areas there and deleted the larger one. Why did you do that?

Thanks for getting back to me.

The reason most places just enclose the residential area as a single polygon is because it takes to long to map the individual areas. In fact, more and more there's a movement against such areas as they tend to enclose everything else in there, parks, industrial, retail areas etc and label it all as residential. You'll note that the residential polygon I deleted was only added recently by someone replacing the "whole of North Cambridge" polygon with more accurate smaller ones.

But also I disagree that this part of Cambridge is the odd-one-out. The whole of W and NW Cambridge has been done similarly, and almost all from Arbury Road to the river.

I'll leave your garden tagging (even though I'm betting someone else will revert for consistency before long) but re-add the residential tags.

What's your thinking here? Adding the garden tag just makes those houses different from any other in Cambridge, but removing the residential area means that those houses no longer have a landuse and also the boundaries between them aren't visible.

Thanks, yes I've spotted your excellent work over the years. The anomalies so far are either name inconsistencies, or the fact that Wikidata is behind on civil parish changes, but 51 more to investigate...

Hehe. You've got to love British placenames. I'm reconciling the list of civil parishes in Wikidata with those in OSM and there's an awkward exception to everything it seems.

Why did you delete the wikidata tag?

You're absolutely right, it should be on the building. My wikidata tags have been following whatever the amenity=place_of_worship is on, which 99% of the time is on the building, but in this case obviously isn't. I've been transferring them as I find them so will knock this one out, thanks!

Thanks that's great.