Hi Martin, I don't suppose you remember why the designation=public_footpath was removed from ways 34849366 and 508192752? The public footpath sign at the corner of Hills Farm Lane and Guildford Road is still up, pointing to the path.

Hi Sinh, I drove past today and the pub has definitely been closed for a while. I've updated the pub and car park in changeset 72573823.

Hi Phill,
I passed by this area today, did you mean to delete way 679195994? It still exists on the ground so should stay on the map. Also the Downs Link is still being routed further to the south, is the current position where it will go when construction is finished?
Thanks, Matt

Hi Dan, careful when adding possessive apostrophes - it's Piries Place on the ground, not Pirie's.

Thanks for replying so quickly. The dictionary definition is a little misleading with regards to OSM data and sounds to me like it's describing a frontage road:osm.wiki/Frontage_road

The commonly accepted definition of a service road in OpenStreetMap can be found here: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice

Hi Jake, highway=service doesn't prohibit public access to the estate by itself (that's what access=* tags are for). This road is a dead end only used to access the businesses, so highway=service seems appropriate to me.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/62810109

Done, thanks. :)

Hi Dave, I'm not sure about the name 'muddy cut through' for way 85621725. That's more of a description (albeit an accurate one!)

Is it a local name for the path? If so then loc_name would be more appropriate.

Thanks for looking, yes I tagged this with a review_requested for a couple of reasons. Firstly I was doing it from memory (although I just noticed I put source=survey, oops) and couldn't remember the exact geometry of Dunelm and TK Maxx (I happened to have the chance to survey it a couple of days later and made some corrections in changeset 57847906). More importantly it's the first time I've tagged using the level schema so thought I'd flag it just in case I'd misunderstood how it was intended to work.

No problem, I don't usually have the time to do a full survey but I'm filling in details and updating features from memory when I notice them. :)

Hi Phill, thanks again for the continued updates. Just a tip with the construction area in this changeset - it's a good general rule of thumb to avoid linking areas and ways together like you have done here: osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Areas_and_Ways_Sharing_Nodes

Practically, it makes it harder to edit if the construction area changes in the future (likely!). Also the way is often drawn along the centreline of the road. I've made some changes to this area in osm.org/changeset/56646994

Hi Phill, thanks for your recent edits. Just to let you know that you joined way 562741029 to part of the North Horsham admin boundary (osm.org/way/222020434) instead of Redkiln Way. I've fixed this in changeset 56535280.

Thinking about it, opening_hours would probably be better.

Hi Dave, is the ice rink now back to being a volleyball court? If the ice rink is only open for a limited time each year it would be better to use a seasonal=* tag (or something similar)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Does this lake really exist?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/56197374

You only have to make the changes once - the different zoom levels render at different times. The full technical explanation is pretty long and I'm no expert on it, so I won't be able to help ;-) but the changes will show up eventually. It's unlikely to take more than a few days.

Nice, thanks!

Hi belugabob, and welcome to Openstreetmap! Your edit looks good to me, thanks for updating the map with the new layout.

The only improvement I'd make is that you have split the cycleway up into three parts for what seems to be no reason (I'm happy to be corrected!) - ways 235219134; 554875249 and 554875250. If there's no difference in tagging between them then it's generally neater to keep ways in one section.

No response so I've undeleted them in changeset 55548041.

Hello!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55353492