Oh, err. An untagged way :-) I don't know why the josm validator didn't object. But it sometimes flags up spurious stuff which I ignore, so perhaps this slipped through.

Kit HIll was in a bit of a mess before this set of edits, and I may have been a bit overwhelmed. Fortunately I have kept the gps-enabled dashcam videos as well as the additional accurate gps tracks, so I should be able to look into what went wrong.

I will see if I can find time to fix this later this evening, 'flu-like bug permitting :-)

Feel free too flag up any other rubbish. But the validator should pick up any other problems. IIRC, there were many warnings from previous mapping that I hadn't surveyed, so in the main left alone.

Weird. I have absolutely no idea how that happened. Maybe I accidentally dragged the node in josm and didn't notice, but why just that point?
I wasn't even mapping in that area.

Actually, josm thinks that I moved it by 1.51km!

I have put it back almost exactly where it was, but I must say that it does not look like a photovoltaic panel to me. Much more like a evacuated tube thermal solar panel(s). At least on the Clarity beta image. On the ordinary Esri image it looks more extended, so there it looks more like a possible photovoltaic panel array.
I leave it to you to decide whether to change it to a thermal solar generator, depending on which imagery you believe.

I am really embarrassed by this mistake, and worried that there could have been others. I am impressed that you picked it up.

I think that edit was from a long series, and maybe I was just tired and somehow missed the problem.

There is a reason that 692622291 was not mapped before. It is private property with a gate, belonging to a single property. Unless it is exceptionally large or significant, we would not normally map such private drives in the UK. Partly a matter of privacy.

If you look at the number of local gps traces, you should be able to deduce that there is very active mapping in this areas, and such features are unlikely to have been missed.

Well, I guess that a u-turn is probably covered on a strict interpretation. But double solid lines in the UK are primarily aimed at stopping dangerous overtaking. Well, white ones, anyway.

This is just a normal turning with no particular restrictions.

No, the highway code permits crossing double solid lines to turn into a side road: you seem to have overlooked this part of the sentence:
"unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road."

I hope you haven't applied this to other places in the UK: it would make routing almost impossible over much of the country!

There is also a sign post at the junction which again would be a bit silly if one could not turn there.

There *is* a missing turn restriction for Tideford Road which I will add soon. Maybe the "driver" confused the turnings?

But this turn restriction isn't there as far as I can see. I drive along this road regularly, usually with a geotagged dashcam running. I have just carefully checked the video taken last week, and there is no restriction turning right into Tredinnick Lane when travelling East on the A38.

I have also checked dashcam video taken in January travelling West, and again there are no turn restrictions on the A38.

I haven't surveyed along Tredinnick Lane: I suppose that there could be a "No right turn" sign when joining the A38, although the dashcam video shows the sign at the end of the lane, and there is no restriction there, so I think that too is not the case.

So I don't know what this "driver's feedback" is, but it seems to be objectively wrong.

I was looking on The Esri (clarity) Beta. But I just checked the ordinary Esri and yes it is there. It didn't occur to me that the "clarity" version could be old.

As you say, it must be hidden very well by hedges. I have two videos going past in both directions and I looked very carefully. But Cornish hedges tend to be high :-)

I don't think that the solar farm at Mendennick actually exists.

At least I can see no sign on two video surveys driving past on the B3247 yesterday, and I also can't see anything on ESRI imagery.

Should this be a proposed solar farm? I even looked on Bing, an alleged source, and saw nothing.

Should it not be deleted or changed to something like proposed_power?
I could not even see any signs of construction, although I might have missed that.

You are right. I examined the video again very carefully and the blue arrow signs are still there. Not the sort of sign that I was expecting, and very indistinct on the video.

So I will put the oneway back again.
Sorry about the noise: I find so many mistakes in tagging around Cornwall, mainly from armchair mappers that I tend to assume the worst :-)

There are no one signs at the intersection with the A390.
I know the A390, have dashcam video and gps. So I have removed the oneway tag from way 38033541.
Perhaps there is some section that does need a oneway tag?

I see from one of your comments that you are tagging for the renderer :-

'East Moor's delineation had disappeared from the map. Seems it was changed to "Natural" from "Heath", so wasn't rendering as a moorland. Changed back.'

That is horrific. Removing ground truth and replacing with an invention. This is not what OSM is about. We want a reliable honest map: not a series of inventions to make the rendering pretty.

If you don't like the rendering, fix that, not the facts on the ground.

You have also changed Twelve Men's Moor back to the ridiculous heath. I would have suspected vandalism if you had not replied.

I have just come across Inn Down!
If you had looked at the history, you would have seen that I had corrected the original "heath" rubbish, yet you come along and reinstate it!
osm.org/way/391660464

About the nearby areas marked as "heath". Many of those mistakes had been corrected. They too were from armchair mappers with no local knowledge or survey. If we have to give a natural tag on such a coarse scale, the best is "unimproved grassland". I can't find that tag for now, but I will change at least some of the mistakes to at least grassland when I have time.

Another quibble. You left the source tag as "local_knowledge; mapbox". But that was for the original mapping, not for your changes(s). So we now have wrong data apparently from "local_knowledge" which you don't seem to have.

Christ Church, Oxford includes the Meadow.

Craddock Moor?? The whole area? And yet more "heath" ?

Craddock Moor is just a section in the SW.

Again, there are some portions that might be described as "heath", but decidedly not the whole area.

I now see that you have marked nearly all of the Caradon area as "heath" as well. Have you been there? There are a few patches that might be called heath, but not the while area.

Why have you changed Fore Down to heath? It is clearly a common, and is grassland. Did you not see the source tag indicating survey and local knowledge?