Thank-you! These were all my mistakes, I think.

Can this relation be deleted? This route seems to no-longer be publicised on the TfL website alongside the other Qxx and Cxx routes - neither as a current route nor a proposed route.

Hi there. Have you visited Wanstead Flats or looked at the satellite images or GPS traces? I do not beleive this path exists on the ground, and I'm sure the bridge you added does not. What is your source?

Thank you!

Oops! Thanks you. I don't think I made a habit of it!

Hi there.

In this changeset, you added a fixme to r138744: "needs working". I'm looking at the fixmes in my area - can you remember what you meant by this one, and how can it be resolved?

Regards,
Ken

Like this node - osm.org/way/168227082/history

Hiya - for the quarterly project, I've looked at fixmes in this neighbourhood. What did you mean by "KR" in these fixme notes - as in "KR: access to here?" ?

Another one for luxiaghd, again pointing to problems in the automated processing - see node 10282554742. While it's possible to fix these by hand (seehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130938743 ), it would be better if the #tflcid did not mess them up in the first place.

Looks good!

Do these new area sidewalks ever show up in the default osm.org rendering?

Hello - can you have a look at node 10282554684 , created in this changeset? It's stuck t the edge of a landuse=residential area, and it should be on the road, I assume. Please check your processes to avoid recurrence elsewhere.

Best thing would be to draw an area around the whole site, tagged with landuse=construction. Prefix the building and carpark and service roads with "disused:"

When they are demolished, change the prefix to "razed:". When the new builings appear add then as "building=construction". When they are finished and occupied, change to "building=residential" (or whatever). Finally, when the old buildings are no-longer visible on commonly used aerial images, remove them.

Always good to see reference numbers being added! I'm a fiend for postcodes and FHRS codes myself.

But congrats!

Your 10,000th edit!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129779299

Great, another one crossed-off!

How do you get to #156, then? is it through/under 154?

Thanks for this! And welcome to OSM.

I think this particular building will shortly be demolished to make way for new student flats. You might be able to find the details on pa.newham.gov.uk

I do hate comedy routing like that. This changeset (now I look at it, covering too large a geographic area) was prompted by the osmose QA tool, which reports on ways that are part of hiking or cycling route relations. If a way doesn't have matching foot or bicycle tags; that's reported a an error. w452474053 is such a way. I'll see what I can see on the aerial images re:verges and walkability, and update later).

Yes, Ive spotted something is up with these tags and have stopped trying to please osmose on these.