Just for info, the offset I applied was 6.87; -1.64. I forgot to include this in the source.

Thanks Mike. My slip. The way is now corrected to barrier=bollard, representing a line of bollards. (Was highway=bollard.)

I don't know how I came to do that! Thanks for pointing it out mapboxdan. These short sections either side of cycle barriers clearly aren't cycleways, so I've gone for your suggestion of =path (despite its current controversy on the tagging list) and added bicycle=designated.

Hi ramthelinefeed,
I think you’re referring to relation 232039 created and given the name "Shuttle to Cray Link" by UrbanRambler in Sept 2009.
So that I could add tags to a section of one of its members with details not relevant to the rest of it I split the way, which created way 751605531 with all the existing tags, giving the appearance that I created the name tag.
I think your comments should therefore be addressed to UrbanRambler.
I believe this is not an officially-named route. If this is the case, then I agree the name tag should be deleted.
I have no problem with the existence of the relation though and maybe there should be a note tag on the relation to explain the route is a suitable link between official routes.
As an aside, in looking at this I saw that route relation 236878 ("Cray Riverway") was broken at this location, so I’ve fixed that.
Regards,
motogs

Hi Mike, and thanks for your suggestion. Yes, I agree with you and I've changed it to highway=road as it didn't look disused to me when I saw it. Though still vague (but helped by the other tags) it's at least better than highway=yes.
Regards,
motogs

This changeset description should say "Added houses and other buildings" instead of what it does say.

Hi MGSpiller,
I’ve been adding/developing objects in Slaithwaite for a while, and although in many cases I’ve added premises numbers and names, in most of those I hadn’t got as far as adding the village or street names.
I see that you’ve been adding these in a number of cases, so many thanks for that - it saves me having to go back and do that!
You’ve added a number of addr:hamlet=Slaithwaite tags and I see that I’ve added at least one myself (way No.465925686).
As Slaithwaite is rather bigger than a hamlet (see osm.wiki/Tag:place%3Dhamlet), having a population of getting on for 3,000, would you be happy for me to change all the occurrences of addr:hamlet=Slaithwaite (including from other changesets) to addr:village=Slaithwaite? Although addr:village isn’t specifically mentioned in the wiki, it’s used over 100,000 times.
I didn’t want to do this without discussing with you first.
Cheers, motogs

Hi MacLondon, and thanks for your reply.

If I understand correctly, when you split a way, the history is only retained with the part of the way that retains the same identity, and the part of the way with a new identity doesn’t carry the history. This would explain what happened and resolves one of my queries.

I realise that everything including deletions is registered and retained, but I have difficulty finding information.

For example, I haven’t yet been able to find where the original way 237853111 is referenced by the new way that’s created from the old one.
I know it’s there somewhere, so I’ll try and work out how to follow the trail back.

I guess I’ll then need to find how to open the way history from that reference number.

Jumping these steps by using the link you provided for the history of way 237853111 I’m then finding problems using the information in the way history in OSM - but I am making some progress. I’ll also spend a bit of time to try and work out if this history is visible in JOSM.

I can see now that the quietway leaves and then re-joins the footway further on and that it is indeed continuous – sorry for that.

I’d be interested to know which footway I deleted, so I’ll see if I can work out how to find it. There may well be more than one. I haven’t yet learned how I can leave an explanation if I delete something with good reason, so I probably didn’t leave one. As with a lot of OSM I’m making slow progress working these things out bit by bit without compromising progress with developing the map data.

Please don’t feel obliged to respond to this.

Regards,
motogs

Hi MacLondon,
Can you let me know what happened to the history of the way that cycleway 566546111 (created by this changeset 56892334) replaced last week? It seems the tagging’s been transferred over, but I’m unable to compare it with what was there before. I understood that replacing (rather than changing) ways and nodes was frowned on in the OSM community unless the history was transferred too. Or is this the same way as before and the history for some reason isn’t visible to me in JOSM?
Can you help me by explaining what you’ve done please?
I see also that the connecting footway 238240767 has been left in place virtually as it was, resulting in a discontinuity of the Greenwich to Bexleyheath Quietway.
Regards,
motogs

Thanks for your help on this. I think motor_vehicle=destination would be fairly appropriate though not strictly accurate. I considered access =discouraged but there's no signage (yet) to support this.

Hi @GerdP, your guess is correct. The local post van uses the road frequently, but it's virtually unused by any other vehicle. The car park (at one end) and the Manor House (at the other) are each served by other highways. None of the usual values - including 'service' - seem appropriate for this road. After giving it further thought, and trying to use a more common value, I'm proposing to change the value to 'residential'. It is, after all, in an area that most people would regard as residential.
The road is unsuitable and unnecessary for normal traffic. There's a danger that even with the values 'residential' or 'service', routing software will use this as a through-way. Please let me know if can think of a way to tag this road to better reflect its nature.
Thanks for your comments.

Hi @lindawoo
Welcome to OSM, and any developments you can make to the map are welcome. However, in July you appear to have created additional ways west of Marsden using the nodes of existing ways, and also in the process added the odd node to some of the existing ways. I realise you were probably feeling your way a bit, but I'm proposing to delete the duplicate ways, especially as they have no tags and are therefore meaningless. Can I point you in the direction of http://learnosm.org/en/ for help in getting going? All help is very welcome.
Cheers
@motogs

Hi GerdP,
Thanks for raising this. Yes, both tags should of course be highway=footway and I'll correct them now. I did these 5 months ago and have more experience now! Neither path led anywhere on the map, but this is an area I know very well and have used the steps many times. On the ground the ways connect to the footpath alongside the carriageway (notice the bus stops). I can see though that one of the paths connects to the westbound carriageway on the map when it should connect to the eastbound one. I'll change that now too. Now that I've come back to this area of map I can see that there are a number of other things that need improving, so I'll come back and see to these some time in the future.
Thanks for your feedback.