Nice work :)

Be careful with this new bing imagery, it's lovely and clear, but has a bit of an offset.

I'm using an offset of 2.46, -3.82 in iD to correct it around Aberdeen. Your mileage may vary.

I see you've changed Portal Terrace to a footway - this doesn't seem quite right to me since it's got bollards at one end which can be removed for vehicle access (which fits the idea of a pedestrian street).

I don't think this building should be tagged as a sports centre, I thought it was just changing and storage facilities.

However, it may be appropriate to map the area around the building + sports pitches as a sports centre.

I used to walk past here quite a lot and from memory believe you're correct to disconnect this 👍

Hi, I think this is incorrect tagging and would direct your attention to the wiki page:

osm.wiki/Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle

which states

"The main way(s) on the parking lot, for entering and connecting multiple parking_aisle, should be mapped with highway=service, only."

It is courteous to split up your changes so they do not span the entire world, please consider doing so in future

Just thought I'd check, looks like a good edit to me 👍

I'm curious as to why you've listed the OS website as a source? To my knowledge that is not open data.

This area is a little tricky looking at it now.

I see you've aligned Kingswells Causeway to the Esri World Imagery layer which actually aligns well with the A944.

However, if you adjust the DigitalGlobe and Maxar Premium imagery to align with the A944, they put the Causeway further left.

I suspect the Esri layer imagery hasn't been fully corrected ("orthorectified") because there's a single trace heading south down the causeway which should be aligned with the right side of that road and Esri puts it on the left. Similarly switching between it and Bing skews the nearby car parks differently.

The other layers don't seem perfect either though as they show similar differences. However, I believe they're closer to reality when the offset is adjusted.

A bit of misalignment isn't a huge deal as it's still useful to see the road layout.

In general you'll want to check imagery against GPS traces (can be enabled under background settings panel of the iD editor). A good way to do this is find nearby roads and junctions with many traces and see if the imagery is generally in line with the majority of them (traces aren't perfect which is why it's good to find a road with many).

Now in a situation like this where the new road layout is only present on a misaligned layer, what you can do is adjust its imagery offset (under background settings in iD) to align the layer as best you can with the traces and with other imagery you know is aligned well (toggle between them to see if the roads shift much).

Feel free to contact me if you ever have any questions or need a hand with something!

Just to chime in, my general experience mapping around Aberdeen has been that Bing and Esri Clarity have the best alignment

Relation was broken in changeset 70392134.

We should probably stop using the road segment entities as relation members and map the boundary using ways attached to the roads to reduce the likelihood of this breaking again in future.

Hi Mark, it seems that this changeset broke the Cairngorms National Park boundary. An honest mistake as one of the roads you edited was a relation member.

I've fixed the issue in osm.org/changeset/70968197

No worries, I only learned about it from the original OSM edit that made the change!

These are no longer trunk roads:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/awpr-sections-of-a90-a92-and-a96-to-be-de-trunked

It's probably that the rendered tiles have been cached by your browser. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bypass_your_cache

This was accidentally tagged source=survey. Mapped using aerial imagery.

Similar to my comment on a previous changeset, I think the name of Taylor quad should be on a separate way representing the area, not on the grass.

I also definitely don't agree with joining the two grass areas as this does not reflect what is on the ground.

Not sure how I feel about tagging the grass areas in King's as "King's Quad"

The information was missing though (same for Taylor Quad), but I feel like it should be applied to a way that represents the full area of the quad.