It can be changed to residential. I'd forgotten to add this bit after a recent survey https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=751505759831890

Sorry to comment on an old changeset, but before I got to Wrabness beach yesterday I walked along osm.org/way/28723405 having expected to encounter some signs saying private, but reached the main road without seeing any. There are some at the main road end saying there isn't access to the treatment works and to use the A120, and using access=private will probably fix that, but I don't think it is private for pedestrians (not that many will want to use it). Not that people will want to use it if the new footpath ever gets built (as part of England coast path one is proposed to west of treatment works, then paralleling railway to meet existing (but not yet mapped in OSM) paths in Copperas Wood to rejoin the Essex Way where it crosses the railway line. I wondered whether I should add a foot=yes permission, or at least foot=permissive?

I'll have to go out and survey to confirm, but I'm wondering if it got moved to here: osm.org/node/10687884073/history

Looks like it was me realigning osm.org/way/65000623 to UK Cadastral that caused the overlap with the other way. I thought I'd checked, but must have missed it.

Ooops. Thanks.

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