Thanks for checking. I've added some extra tags in osm.org/changeset/106060093

Perhaps one of the suggestions here might work?
osm.wiki/Swimming_and_bathing#Natural_water_where_swimming_is_possible

No problem. Easily done and easily fixed.

You inadvertently dragged a service road connected to Leswin Place. Fixed in osm.org/changeset/105691314

Many thanks. I had no idea how best to tag it and seamark* isn't something I'm familiar with.

Thanks. I forgot to do that one.

No problem, I've undeleted it in osm.org/changeset/105211075

Has the zebra crossing on Rotherfield Street (SE of the junction with Elizabeth Avenue) really been completely removed, along with the associated speed table?

Is there any reason area:highway=* and highway=* + area=yes cannot co-exist, at least until OSM Carto renders area:highway?

Hi and many thanks for helping to update a neglected area of Newham! I'm based in Maryland, but haven't got any further than Hampton Road with detailed local mapping.

You might find the "OSMUK Cadastral Parcels" overlay in iD useful for aligning the Bing aerial imagery and finding property boundaries.

There's also the StreetComplete app (Android only) which can be useful to fill in extra information while walking around the area, like housenumbers, building height and street details. It also lets you add a note with a photograph for you or another mapper to pick up later on.

If there's anything I can help with, please feel free to ask.

Voting suggests otherwise.
osm.wiki/Proposed_features/clubhouse

Historic England disagree. Please revert.

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1081040

Hi, welcome and thanks for updating OpenStreetMap.

If you want to change the building from building=apartments to building=yes (probably correct given the associated address interpolation way), you can simply update the tag. There is no need to delete the object and its history to achieve this.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

You asked for a review of this changeset, so I've taken a quick look.

One think you might want to change is to use natural=wood when mapping tree cover as an area, as natural=tree_row is intended to be used as a linear feature. Links to the wiki documentation for both tags are below.

osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwood
osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree_row

I'm fairly sure that there isn't a very small park somewhere inside the Guy's Hospital building. It certainly isn't visible on Bing aerial imagery.

osm.wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers

Unfortunately, we cannot use Google's imagery for OSM as we do not have explicit permission to use their copyrighted data.

osm.wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_you_just_use_Google_Maps.2Fwhoever_for_your_data.3F

When you say "latest street map images", what is the source of these: Bing Streetside, Mapillary, or something else?

Thanks - that's rather more thorough than I managed with a dying phone yesterday.

I think it could be worth splitting highway area w373404383 into areas for each of the radial paths (and splitting the linear ways passing through the central "square"), as routers may just take account of the surface=asphalt otherwise.

Hi,

The cycleway (w860863241) you mapped in this changeset was changed to a bridleway with horse=designated and bicycle=designated in changeset #103145885. No source was given for this change and there appears to be no evidence from Kent CC PRoW data that any PRoW other than the parallel public footpath SD72.

The mapper also adds an entirely redundant access=no to every PRoW he edits. While adding this to (e.g.) a public footpath mapped as highway=footway + foot=designated will not affect routing, it changes the OSM Carto rendering from a coloured dashed line to faint grey and as such should be considered harmful.

NB the mapper does not respond changeset comments.