I don't remember what it's like there, but tunnel probably isn't right. I'll try to check when I'm around.

I lived in Cheltenham when that road was built (bypassing Churchdown via the old Gloucester Road) and I currently drive it regularly. From Benhall to Longlevens it's always been known locally as the Golden Valley Bypass (or just Golden Valley in context) like in traffic reports and road works, and surely should be tagged as with loc_name. The first search result I see is https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/a40-golden-valley-bypass-traffic-7652872

I'm pretty sure there's no sign naming the M5 junction. I'd call it "Golden Valley junction" when giving instructions, but that's obvious and I'm not sure it should be explicitly tagged. Recent maintenance work on it uses Golden Valley interchange or gyratory, e.g. https://freyssinet.co.uk/bridge-strengthening-golden-valley-bridge-refurbishment/ and https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/south-west-news/m5-junction-11-reopens-on-schedule-after-18-month-upgrade-work/ (OGL).

OK, I added the outlines I had. Last time I looked it seemed mostly finished, but not all accessible. ("Finished" in some form that didn't impress a painter who worked there...)

I'm not sure all the NSUL postcodes are for the right road, by the way.

-- Dave (who mostly can't get out, even if you'd left much to do!)

Do you have any more to upload around here? I was about to upload some building outlines around Fossebridge place I'd done before, in the hope of surveying in the next few days. I thought I'd better check if you already have data.

Do you know why you'd have removed highway=no from way 914205656? The only source in the changeset is Bing, and there's no sign of it in the current imagery, or I'd have tagged it as footway.

Is way 842686974 really Hambrook Terrace? There's no street sign, only a housename-type one on the end of the terrace. I think I should have tagged it service, not residential, distinct from the road on the ground and cadastral areas.

Hi, Why did you remove highway=no from ways in this changeset? That's recommended for the definitive line by Robert Whittaker, and those are now flagged as errors by his tool, which is how I noticed. (I'm puzzled by the changeset comment.)

I'd anyway mapped the business in SIxways. It's not clear to me whether or not it should be "& Co", as I've been inside ill and can't remember the signage, but no problem adding that.

Could you please correct this and your other edits. You've removed a track which clearly exists, and these tracks obviously aren't named like "Private Access". I don't think there's any assumption of public access for such tracks, and specifically not that they're a public footpath -- designations of which I'm adding in the area -- as your comments suggest. Similarly for the Ordnance Survey mapping of these, but you're welcome to add access=private where appropriate. access=no implies delivery companies can't use them, for instance. So, a private track should have "highway=track", "access=private", and no name (unless it actually has one locally). Likewise for a service road.

Thanks.

Thanks. I thought I'd fixed all the errors importing definitive lines which JOSM didn't warn about.

Do you know why you'd have tagged this as a public footpath? It isn't in the county council GIS data.

Why did you remove the HE_ref tag I added, which is the documented way of mapping scheduled monuments?

Hello.
I noticed you added useful car park info from the council web site. Is there a specific licence to use it? It seems unlikely they would object, but all I can see on the web site is a general notice with a commercial use restriction, which makes data unusable for OSM. If not, there's no harm in asking the council, of course.

OK, I'll change it with other updates.

Bence's perimeter shouldn't be tagged as a building, should it? I don't remember if it's a wall or a fence.

I meant to ask about this ancient changeset some time ago.
There are two streams north of the Oakley estate. You labelled the more northerly one Wyman's Brook. Do you have any idea why, at this juncture? Streetview and NLS 6" say Wyman's Brook is the one that borders the estate (whose route NLS Bartholemews shows across town until it joins up before Pittville). I should take some exercise to collect addresses on the estate sometime, and could maybe see if there's any sort of labelling on the footbridge.

Any idea if way 833818065 ("fencewa") should be fence or wall?

Thanks. I'm not sure what happened, but since JOSM apparently didn't catch it, is there something else I could have done mechanically?

The supposed service road would be through a wall. I've removed it and added the correct access. Amazon would be better not trusting "AI" in well-surveyed areas!

OK, removed. I'll assume other names I added from that are OK unless I hear otherwise. (There is a sign on the ground for Isbourne Way on the path down from the washpool, but it's not clear there's a free source for the continuation of the route.)