I hadn't noticed this change until I went to re-tag it as a private driveway based on this Mapillary image https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=162958163320467 and this note (which I'll now close as the driveway is marked as private) osm.org/note/3725035

Your change to osm.org/relation/4740645 to fix the gaps in E2 has broken the Essex Way by adding a bit that doesn't belong.

Thank you. My eyes aren't what they once were...

Any chance you could add the data source to your changesets? OS OpenMap Local doesn't seem to include these ways yet, and while I think the USRN opendata contains the shape, it doesn't contain names. You've added quite a few where the buildings sites are still fenced off and the roads are at a very early stage of construction.

Would the parish council website that you've added to the village node by more appropriate on the parish relation? osm.org/relation/76861

Looks like it reappeared somewhere between my October and November Mapillary images.

Thanks. Funnily enough I went to survey the box when you removed it and I was sure it was definitely gone then, so looks like it has been replaced. Or I checked the wrong place when I was out.

This changeset includes a number of nodes such as osm.org/node/9582085770 with the addr:street as "Colchester Commons Commons" which looking at the map doesn't need Commons repeating.

Hi. Are you sure bicycles are allowed on public footpaths? Particularly the south end of this one can be quite cramped on foot when the crops are nearing their maximum height (depending on crop). Thanks, Ed

Oh yes, my apologies. Thanks for fixing it too (though I might also remove the name, as it isn't the name of the footpath).

It looks like you've merged an abandoned:railway way with a highway=footway way, which now leaves an erroneous name, start_date and end_date on the footpath way, which probably wasn't the intention. I'm not sure what you were aiming for, so haven't just reverted the changes.

I think that one has been removed from the wall and a new one added just north of the Kings Arms, visible in https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=468959014794623 - I'll try and get out there in the next few days to survey the reference.

This news article from July seems to have a photo of what is planned. https://tw.news.yahoo.com/金門料羅港區北碼頭區圍堤造地工程動土-2-圖-071011032.html

I only spotted it as I was working out where to go for a walk after work yesterday. I walked from Batemans Tower to the edge of this crossing and back. Crossing image in Mapillary: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=188835886895024

I think you might want to remove highway=track and just leave the disused:highway track, as the current tagging suggests this is routable: osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bike&route=51.83696%2C0.99420%3B51.83588%2C0.99354

I think the update process is broken because of this issue making the coastlines invalid (and perhaps a different issue before this one).

It does show it. Firstly because the way direction is wrong (I haven't reversed it, but couldn't even find how to in iD) and secondly because two coastlines are overlapping. I would say either remove the natural=coastline tag (effectively reverting to v1 of the way), or make the coastline go around the outside of the new area rather than having two overlapping ways at the join.

Hi Bernard. Looks like you forgot to delete osm.org/way/1043475948 - doing so now. Ed

Do they really count as a city until the formal receipt of the Letters Patent later this year?

Thanks for the reply. Local knowledge is what makes OpenStreetMap so good. And if anyone else wonders about the restriction with no sign hopefully they'll find this discussion too. Best wishes, Ed