Are you sure these are boardwalks? They look more like covered walkways in aerial imagery. There’s an optional Covered field you can enable in the menu. I went ahead and changed it to a covered walkway in changeset 150813879.

OK, in that case, you’ll have to redo the changes manually. This time, try to keep the roads from overlapping or crossing each other where there isn’t an intersection. Your changeset comment can say that the change took place recently, so other mappers know not to trust the aerial imagery too much.

FYI, the Swimming Pool preset is for the pool itself, not the sunbathing area around it. Fixed in changeset 150813655.

After mapping a building that has right angles, right-click on it and choose Square, or press Q, to straighten out the building automatically. This way you don’t have to try as hard to draw right angles manually.

These changes appear to have been undone in changeset 150739234 due to validation warnings. The available background layers don’t show any shift in the roads like what you mapped. Can you provide more context? Did the shift take place very recently?

Actually, it was originally introduced in changeset 91106420.

Reverted name and ref changes in changeset 150279629.

Changeset 150279295 reverts this changeset due to incorrect replacement of refs with names and introduction of a bogus one-way street.

There is no consensus yet about whether a roadway’s name=* can refer to a route number, but there is broad agreement that it is incorrect to replace a ref=* tag with name=*, especially based on TIGER. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/names-are-not-refs-vs-some-names-are-based-on-refs/109995

osm.org/changeset/150278166

Reverted in changeset 150277583.

Reverted in changeset 150278020. Placing route numbers in name=* is controversial, but in any case route numbers belong in ref=*.

There is no consensus yet about whether a roadway’s name=* can refer to a route number, but there is broad agreement that it is incorrect to replace a ref=* tag with name=*, especially based on TIGER. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/names-are-not-refs-vs-some-names-are-based-on-refs/109995

osm.org/changeset/150277655

Restored in changeset 149362992.

I think this relation should be restored to a much older version: osm.org/relation/3839665/history/23 The hundreds of versions since then had individual roadways as members, mostly in Vietnam. I think that’s why it got into a bad state and eventually got deleted.

Ah, thank you for the clarification. Are mappers in India distinguishing between expressway (motorway) as a highway classification and the National Expressway system? As far as I know, the National Highway system also includes some expressways, but there would be no way to know this from how a route like this is tagged, other than to guess that “NH” on the way ref refers to a National Highway.

Hi, was the change from network=IN:NH to IN:NE intentional? The ways all have ref tags that are still prefixed with NH, and I wasn’t aware that a National Expressway could have such a large number. Would this route number be signposted in Roman numerals like the other NEs?

Reverted in changeset 148611921.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-counties-and-planning-regions-in-connecticut/109799

This changeset is being discussed on the forum:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-strip-malls-buildings/109813/12

I was also suspicious of whether this import came from GNS, but it doesn’t have any record of a populated place here. The closest one is a “Ban Ni Kô” that probably refers to the village just to the west.