Updated based on public Maxar Imagery

Unless you have a better mechanism to communicate with mappers in the locality that your changes are "best effort" and not from a survey, then I think you need to add a note, especially where the situation is ambiguous.

Unless you have a better mechanism to communicate with mappers in the locality that your changes are "best effort" and not from a survey, then I think you need to add a note.

For example, is the path really called "Robin Place" -- is it signed, or left from some previous changed edit.

If you are changing the map based on incomplete data you should at least add a Map Note (note+ icon on the website) so that local mappers know that it needs a detailed survey!

I will have another look at new ESRI imagery -- and will revert if there are cars facing in different directions.

If you are changing the map based on incomplete data you should at least add a Map Note (note+ icon on the website) so that local mappers know that it needs a detailed survey!

I'm going to review satellite imagery and will probably edit osm.org/way/780235136

If you are changing the map based on incomplete data you should at least add a Map Note (note+ icon on the website) so that local mappers know that it needs a detailed survey!

Think this needs reverting I can see cars parked facing the opposite direction on ESRI clarity and ESRI world.

"path" doesn't really help foot and cycle routing -- can you see if it can be better classified?

Think this should be reverted - there was already a bollard blocking the roads - as show in Bing imagery. Just adding a "path" probably doesn't help foot and cycle routing.

Modified using Maxar (offset).

Better to mark this as construction - adding "access=no" makes it hard to remember to remove it -- without setting a calendar for October. Also probably needs an OSM note to make it even more visible, as a short-term change

Just wondered about motorbikes and horses :-)

Changeset comment seems incorrect.

The buildings already have "addr:unit" values.

*If* it were "3 Clareton Villas" which seems unlikely given it's unit 4, then you could make a case for having addr:housename="Clareton Villas" and addr:housenumber="3", and remove the addr:unit.

As it is currently, it is incorrect and I will revert the change.

Changeset comment seems incorrect

If it's a track it should be "highway=track" not "name=track"

It improves motor_vehicle routing but degrades cycle routing -- I think you should have added a cycleway.

Why delete this "Birch House" should be around here?

Hopefully removed now.

Didn't get any validation issues, except for some complaints about "incomplete" relation -- same as previous version had.

Double-checked -- it was broken before I editted it.

If you move a building you should probably
move all POIs inside it.