There's some strange elements like "Cycle Track" and a cycleway that's coincident with the northern end of Wedmore Vale. You've also added a gate on a tertiary highway -- or looks like it.

I'm afraid this changeset probably should be reverted -- and maybe redone?

Based on your changeset comment I've marked it as a disused:amenity

You might find trying ESRI clarity imagery works better for older buildings.

It would be great if you could please include more description in the changeset comment so that local mappers can review it more easily.

Look to be in the wrong location -- are these just copied from a copyrighted website? Does OSM have a licence from ASDA?

The same object should not be duplicated in OSM - other pedantic mappers *will* remove overlapping highways.

The best way to add the cycle path/track is to add that feature to the existing highway "Windmill Close".

If you want to create a seamless Filwood Greenway -- then you should create a relation, e.g. like Bristol/Bath cycle track osm.org/relation/2205611#map=12/51.4323/-2.4877&layers=C

Is the cycleway open to pedestrians?

On three sets of imagery the bunker you deleted is visible? https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=84642062

See the red bits in https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=84641825

It's deleted a lot of ponds too -- at least that needs to be reverted -- I guess they looked a bit green and got confused for grass?

Changed to footway

Why did you add "access=destination" there's no signage on Bing Streetside to indicate that.

Yes https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.456214916006935&lng=-2.588466968384568&z=17&feedItem=user-gG1f6osGs7f38gOYNiKexQ-activity-user-gG1f6osGs7f38gOYNiKexQ-publishing_done-image&focus=photo&menu=false&mapStyle=Mapillary+satellite&pKey=rH14XbHlwqk7bYFjym1veA&x=0.5135833417865121&y=0.6549211628080613&zoom=0 shows a one-way (for general traffic) two-way for buses section of road.

However, it's nowhere near the sections of road that you editted.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.455823520643015&lng=-2.590307431022122&z=17&feedItem=user-gG1f6osGs7f38gOYNiKexQ-activity-user-gG1f6osGs7f38gOYNiKexQ-publishing_done-image&focus=photo&menu=false&mapStyle=Mapillary+satellite&pKey=NZgGd75dT8wFcXR64TpVRw and
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.45570653386494&lng=-2.5904592230743657&z=17&feedItem=user-gG1f6osGs7f38gOYNiKexQ-activity-user-gG1f6osGs7f38gOYNiKexQ-publishing_done-image&focus=photo&menu=false&mapStyle=Mapillary+satellite&pKey=PFPpdYm1-SAe8rWt9ZwOZw
are nearer to the highways that you editted and clearly show two lanes for general traffic.

Cheers for confirming it wasn't a new modification and adding the way back. I'll add the link bridge and mark the footway undeneath as tunnel=building_passage hopefully that should be ok.

Any chance you could possibly have a look using ESRI clarity imagery -- which is how it was originally drawn -- it's usually a lot clearer (if older) than Bing (explained on the Bristol page on the wiki).

Just to check -- you seem to have deleted a footway viisble on Bing Streetside -- does that no longer exist? https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=a3f4275c-ab1a-4433-991a-03cdfa85a6ac&cp=51.457135~-2.605251&lvl=19&dir=104.24519&pi=-4.420029&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027

Did you redraw this using a GPX track or from satellite imagery -- some of the paths no longer follow the OSM GPX data now.

Bing isn't the greatest imagery -- ESRI clarity is best, but old -- or Maxar is newer and ok once you adjust it.

Your changes (or at least a lot of green areas) seem to be there when I zoom in a bit. Large area tiles probably get rendered less frequently.

Maybe also check your browser cache?

Hi Paul,
Short-term temporary access changes are a pain -- leaving a note on the main map means that other mappers can fixup any issues should you be unable to do so in the future.

Marking it as construction means that it's visible on the main map and on other applications that use OSM data.

Unfortunately, the conditional syntax is fiddly, and yours was "corrected" by a subsequent changeset osm.org/changeset/83264362 (before mine). Conditional doesn't really work well for roadworks -- though it is possible to abuse them if there's a known end date.

Because the conditional aspect was "lost" it gets much harder to know what the access should be if/when it reopens.
motor_vehicle=no should be kept, but foot=no shouldn't? What if there was a real conditional access before?

If you look at the tagging on osm.org/way/239781126 -- it's trying to capture the sense of the original tagging from when it was open -- which is important if it's a short-term closure but may be moot in this particular instance.

Cheers, Neil

Hi Mike,
You're right the main issue was the preceding changeset -- but setting access to "no" makes it hard to tell what it should be when the track reopens. Cheers, Neil

*Please* don't make "invisible" access changes when local mappers will consider this to be (previously) mapped fully/correctly. At the very *least* add a note on the map, so that locals can update it in the future -- unless you're prepared to remember to do so (add a date in your diary, etc.).

So, I'm going to revert this and map it as construction, so at least it's visible - *and* add a note so that local mappers can remember to undo this when the construction is finished.

*Please* don't make "invisible" access changes when local mappers will consider this to be (previously) mapped fully/correctly. At the very *least* add a note on the map, so that locals can update it in the future -- unless you're prepared to remember to do so (add a date in your diary, etc.).

So, I'm going to revert this and map it as construction, so at least it's visible - *and* add a note so that local mappers can remember to undo this when the construction is finished.