Amended in changeset 158089680. Thanks!

I doubt there's a cliff here. This changeset may need to be reverted.

'Grangetown' is more commonly one word now, I'd like to see this name change reverted

good bot

'Deli & Stpre' Jass? :)

Hi, yes I agree with your reasoning. Amended in changeset 126937990. Thanks!

Hi Adrian, thanks for contributing to OSM! I have two suggestions for this changeset:
1. There isn’t a need to add a ‘name’ tag to these properties, since you’ve already correctly added the housenumber & street information under the appropriate tags! We try to avoid duplication where possible.
2. Having a look at other addresses in Long Ashton, it seems ‘addr:city’ should be ‘Bristol’, and ‘Long Ashton’ tagged with ‘addr:suburb’.
Thanks again :)

Hi wilda69, was this changeset an accidental upload of your internal notes? I can see most of it has now been deleted, but the 4 nodes that remain don't look useful without additional details. Please could you clarify or delete them? Thanks :)

Interesting, thanks Stephen. I noticed the street sign at the junction for the first time today. Thanks for your insight and contribution, I'll mark the note as resolved.

Hi Stephen, where is your source for this please?

An anonymous mapper mentioned this in an OSM note, I’m curious to know why as I can’t see it indicated anywhere on the street.
osm.org/note/2893566

Congrats on your first changeset! All the building outlines look fine to me. I've removed the amenity=dentist & healthcare=dentist from the building area as there is a node representing these tags already. Sometimes the building itself has the amenity tags, sometimes mappers create an extra node with them instead. To have both would be duplicating data! Thanks and happy mapping. :)

No issues here - nice to see more details added to buildings!

Hi just to let you know, I’ve removed 2 of the Greggs nodes added in this changeset as it looks like they are already present on the map.
It might be worth updating your map data if it is outdated.

This looks like a bad automated edit - the URL before this change was correct.

All looks fine to me, welcome to osm. :)

Considering this is not it's official name, I'm not sure if it's well suited for inclusion in OSM. Perhaps under the alt_name tag?

I think the newly added Cranbourne Way way is more suited to being highway=residential. Amended in changeset:
osm.org/changeset/101217015

Can confirm. You're a legend.

Could you fix the tagging here? :)

osm.org/way/918077128

Welcome to OpenStreetMap!