Just to add, these were from a survey in person. I have since created the respective buildings and attached the addresses to those buildings.

Interesting point. This particular (small) housing development is essentially complete so on this occasion I have just removed it, leaving your "landuse:residential" areas in tact. They encompass the exact same housing development, so I think it's all good now.

Many thanks for the quick reply. I'll look into it shortly and will update.

Hello ndrw6. Hope you don't mind me asking, there's an area marked as 'landuse=construction' but with other areas of 'landuse=residential' on top. Has construction been completed? Can the construction be removed now or does it need to stay? Thank you in advance. :-)

Oops, didn't add a 'comment' to the changeset. This was to change a recycling container to "glass bottles" instead of "glass" as per Osmose suggestion.

Ah I see! Thanks for the quick reply! I've never been down there myself. I've only ever driven past.

Hi Reb F! Hope you're well. Sorry I'm just wondering if you might have mistakenly got the wrong road here when adding these access tags to Harris Way. I'm not aware of any access restrictions for walking or cycle users. In fact, there's a footpath along the road. Just wondering what your source for this change was? Many thanks.

I can see you're in the process of adding house names and numbers in East Bergholt. Just to let you know I've added some missing houses in the area just to the North of White Horse Road.

I couldn't reply directly to your question in the note as it was closed and I didn't want to reactivate it. Yes the shop is vacant as well as closed. Thanks for updating the map!

Thanks for fixing my mistake! :-)

Just to let you know, I recently visited this estate and was running the Kartaview app while driving, so there's some imagery available on there in case any of its useful.

Thanks for spotting and fixing this. It was my error yesterday.

Hi ndrw6!

Thanks so much for the quick response. No need to apologise! I have a lot to learn and I can totally appreciate the advantages of your methods too, especially after doing a bit of research into it. I feel I have a better understanding and feel a bit bad for querying it now. :-) Really hope my message didn't come across as rude.

You're totally right about the Cadastral Parcels and alignment accuracy, too. It's something I wasn't fully aware of when mapping this area previously. Thankfully it's not a huge offset, and I'm sure you're right to favour the Cadastral Parcels alignment. I'll look into perhaps moving the buildings to match your alignment at some point. Please don't worry about editing it yourself. I'm more than happy to do it in time. Thanks for the alignment tips!

That's a really good point about keeping the landuses separate and thanks for explaining it kindly. As I said already, I realise I have a lot to learn! You're very kind to offer to clean up, but since I'm now realising much of the overlaps are caused by the small offset, I really don't want to trouble you with it. In fact, at some point I'd like to start mapping separate 'sidewalk' footways in this area, so it really can wait until then, and I'll probably fix the alignment to match the CPs at the same time.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond and explain. There's a great community on OSM!

Hi again. I've done further research and can see that separating the landuse=residential from roads is generally preferred, so please ignore my previous comment about reverting. I'd still suggest the edges of these landuses need tidying up, however, since the buildings overlap them. If you're not able to do this, don't worry, as I'll tackle it and tidy them up another time.

Hi ndrw6. I've noticed your 2 recent updates to Hadleigh. Thank you for your your work. Improvements and updates are always welcome! I notice you're a very experienced contributor to OSM. So I hope you don't mind me just querying a few changes you made. I nearly didn't write this or mention anything because I thought the changes were minor (and in many ways, they are), but after further careful review I just need to ask about these changes and why they were needed. I totally respect your personal preferences in moving landuse areas (residential, grass, etc) away from roads, but there are good reasons for and against both methods. I know the previous landuse areas were in need of improvement, but unfortunately we now we seem to have lots of (correctly positioned) buildings crossing landuse boundaries when they weren't before, and quite a few inconsistent gaps between landuse areas. I totally respect your style, but can't help feeling it looks a bit messy and inconsistent now. I may be missing something, so please feel free to explain your reasoning for while you feel these changes are needed. If it's just your personal preference then I totally respect it, but would you please at least consider either going back in and making the new landuse areas more accurate so they incapsulate all the buildings fully, or if it's easier and preferable to you, simply revert your change in order to make things neater? If neither of these are possible, please say and I'll try to neaten things up next time I edit this area. Thanks again for your contributions to OSM. :-)

Ah thank you, much better! :-)

Oh yes, well spotted, Thank you. I think that was my error! :-) Thanks for fixing it.

Oops, Thank you! :-)

Thank you for fixing the footpath! Sorry I think I broke it. :-)

Thank you for pointing this out. I had missed out the a letter of the post-code for these buildings. I will now correct my mistake and put the full postcode in for these buildings, so it's valid.