Thank you for fixing this in changeset/175477758 - I have also fixed another case of the same problem in changeset/175510217.

It looks like you used the iD editor, which shows the house name alongside the other address fields you added.

Let me know if you have any more questions or if you would like me to change this for you.

Thanks again for your helpful work.

Thank you for your dilligent work. When making changes like this to work done by a new mapper, it's well worth leaving a comment on the changes you are fixing to share your valuable experience with new mappers.

Thank you very much for making this helpful improvement to the map.

I suspect "addr:housename" would make more sense than "name" for a house's name: addr:housename=*

What do you think?

Again, thank you for adding useful information to the map.

You and TomJeffs keep reverting each others' work. It seems you aren't talking to each other to reach a conscensus, or involving others.

If you are unable to agree on how to map, please involve the Data Working group: osm.wiki/Disputes

For those of use who review changes to the map, it's frustrating to see you both repeatedly reverting the same changes.

I have left a similar comment on changeset/175410402

You and Pete Owens keep reverting each others' work. It seems you aren't talking to each other to reach a conscensus, or involving others.

If you are unable to agree on how to map, please involve the Data Working group: osm.wiki/Disputes

For those of use who review changes to the map, it's frustrating to see you both repeatedly reverting the same changes.

I have left a similar comment on changeset/175412690

As always, thank you for your good work on the map.

What are these realignments based on, and are you sure they are more accurate than the previous routes?

Writing changeset comments longer than two words helps reviewers understand your reasoning: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Again, the description "track" makes these changes hard to understand and review.

Please remember to write helpful, descriptive changeset comments. This modifies eight different ways and adds four, but the description "track" makes it hard for reviewers to understand what you did and why you did it: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Your changeset comment should describe the details of the changes you made, not describe who you are or any other corporate blurb:
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Please encourage your managers at Uber to help mappers like you write more useful changeset comments.

Are you sure the two new roads you added are best described as service roads and not residential roads?

Aerial photography suggests the existing footpath you modified no longer follows the mapped route due to a construction site that incorporates the roads you added.

Thank you, that makes sense. I didn't check as thoroughly as I might have.

I have left a comment on changeset/173961876 to try to understand why these tags exist: it seems worth checking instead of leaving the tags in place just in case they make sense.

Thank you for your helpful work improving the map.

I notice these changes add "intermittent=yes" to way/760195916/history/54 where it seems to make no sense. I assume this is a mistake, but wanted to check.

I noticed this following discussion on changeset/174577957

Two of the ways you created are tagged as "intermittent=yes": way/1450117343 and way/760195916

This seems confusing as they have no other tags. What is intermittent about them?

Thank you for all your helpful work improving the map.

I see you have added lots of names to OSM from OS OpenData StreetView. In several areas I know well, StreetView uses names that nobody uses or sometimes exist in the wrong place.

I encourage you to add names from StreetView where you know they are used today, but suggest avoiding adding names without checking that they make sense in the real world.

Hi,

I've taken my time to reply because it's a complicated and controversial issue: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/post-towns-and-addr-city/137896/7

There's some use of addr:suburb in Saddleworth: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gjt

And some use of addr:village: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gju

I suspect it's one of those aspects of OSM where we have to live with the inconsistency.

Thanks for that.

The bridge / tunnel situation is an odd one but I would keep the current tagging. Standing on the pavement looking south-east it feels like I'm standing on a bridge, and looking at the canal going underneath it looks like a tunnel. I wouldn't object to the tags changing though.

Thank you for improving the map.

I agree there is no evidence of the road having a name, but if I heard the name "Hopton and Carson Bypass" I would assume it refers to this road.

Maybe tagging it as a "loc_name" makes sense osm.wiki/Names#Local_names_(loc_name)

Have you considered asking Rufus Green who added this name in way/39989117/history/13 ?

Again, thank you for your work on the map, but I find these changes confusing.

Your description claims you have corrected a speed limit and a crossing, but you have also added five new footpaths and mistakenly tagged them as public footpaths.

You have also incorrectly added these new footpaths to the GM Ringway Stage 9 walking route.

It's frustrating that you haven't replied to my previous comments, but I hope you will reply to this explaining your reasoning.

Thank you for your helpful work on the map.

This change affects a lot of different things, so it would be very helpful if you had written a more detailed description than the name of the area listing everything you intended to change. This would make the changes easier to review and assess.

Again, thank you for your good work.

I'm unsure that tagging Delph as a suburb of Oldham makes sense.

I realise Royal Mail classify the Saddleworth villages as part of Oldham for their own logistical reasons, that also cause them to classify these villages as part of Lancashire.

See changeset/161137917 and changeset/161137994 for similar discussions.

What do you think?