thanks :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168068187

Hi, there are issues with the way you have mapped the path and cycle way on Church road, these are intersecting other lines/areas.

unless the path is physically seperated form the road tagging the road with path tags is the recommended way of handling this.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163390171

if the carpark is no longer used, but still physically exists use the lifecyle tags to mark it as so
osm.wiki/Key:disused
You could also use osm.wiki/Key:construction or osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbrownfield
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163388601

Not sure on the tagging of this one, this is not a holiday extras "shop" but an office.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163189849

When drawing can you look to use the square up feature? It's shortcutted to Q in the iD editor.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159459834

when editing consider using the overlay "cadastral parcels" in iD. This will allow you to re-register sat images to a known data source
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158474450

Hi Bob, it looks like you have created a large number of building in this area with incorrect tagging. These are marked as residential area with the name tag used as descriptions.
These should be `building=semidetached_house` with no name tag set.

That's just "fixing" mapping for a different consumer. I know you don't like this mapping style but it's what's been used for all of folkstone and this style of mapping is an accepted style and documented on the wiki.

osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way

when aligning try and use exsting geomery where possibe, this way history of changes are easier to follow.
additionaly it looks like when you re-drew these you did not attach the enterances to the buildings
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155601686

this is a three year old change set, the whole area is mapped with side walks mapped as sperate lines, I would suggest that
a) the routers should be able to handle this, this is a (somewhat common) mapping style
b) add the missing crossing.

https://osmcha.org/changesets/156448326 see this change for the difference it can make.

yeah selecting all the areas (but no nodes) and clicking q a few times usually (but not always) jiggles them into a nice squared up area, sometimes have to tweek a few nodes and repeat to get a good shape for things like rows of houses.

Hi, thanks for you edits, can I suggest you use the square up feature in ID (short cut is q) to give nice square corners to your buildings.

Thanks,
Mex
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156434790

Welcome to OSM, thanks for you changes. Can you please use descriptive change log text to help others understand your changes. Thanks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156121569

Bing is not perfectly geo alined, you might find you are makign things more wrong by trying to align to sat image without correction.

Are you realigning the sat image to a know good source such as the cadastral parcels?

Square up is bound to the shortcut q in the id editor. Hit ? For the full list.

Additonally please don't use the 'name' field for address numbers, these should only be included in the addr:housenumber tag

Thank you for attempting to align the buildings. Please user the "Square corners of a line or area" tools where possible (Q in iD) to ensure building shapes are squared off.

Can you also explain why you have removed valid building, the garages, in this commit?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155600626

Looks like it's attributed to me but came from an existing node being merged into the area https://osmcha.org/changesets/149490359

this doesn't look to match any route visible on the sat image.