Thank you, that is very true.

Much of the towpath in Cheshire is legally public footpath but the Shropshire section should be foot=permissive as you say.

Cheers Phil

Hi Ivan
Cyclists do not have a statutory right of way on canal towpaths in England and Wales. The towpaths you changed were correctly tagged as bicycle=permissive and this tag needs to be fixed.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this gate being access=private seems highly unlikely as this road is part of NCN 82 so walkers and cyclists are obviously allowed through.

It appears on OS opendata as a public road and my gut reaction is simply a gated road.

What sources are you using to believe that the road is private?

Cheers Phil

Hi, please could you add meaningful changeset comment that describe what you are aiming to achieve. Details tells me nothing.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Are you sure that osm.org/node/1387451062/history is really noexit?

A note appeared here which suggests there is a footpath link here, which is normal when a road is cut in this way.

I have added the footpath however it would be useful if you could confirm.

Cheers Phil

As OSM started in the UK and OSM road types are based on UK road types you could argue other countries do not conform with the original OSM definition. France is the odd one as they had a trunk road network (route nationale) similar to the UK until departmentalisation in the 90s.

However the section north of the A47 cannot be secondary, unless it is a B road. According to OS Opendata Roads it is an A road and has the ref A6030 so in OSM UK terms that translates to primary.

However in OSM we follow the on the ground rule, so base classification on the signs.

Mapillary dates from 2017 and at the time the signs were green, indicating trunk in OSM terms
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Uo05-VKcBFABPVwqO3U9FA
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/xj_WWQPgn6X6749jBKy5ZQ

However it could well be that these signs have been changed. It is obviously a shorter route than the 'promoted' trunk route so the city council could well want to discourage its use by through traffic so it is possible it is even tertiary. However based on current information it is certainly not secondary, I would go with primary unless the signs are white and totally absent of numbers.

A new mapillary sequence would be useful here :)

Cheers Phil

Are you sure about this edit.

According to mapillary the signs along Victoria Road East are green, therefore trunk.

However if was an A road, and not trunk, then it would be primary. A secondary road would have a B reference.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your edit. Just one small thing to comment on is that you should not repeat the address in the housename. That field is for houses which have names and should be blank in this case.

Cheers Phil

Mapper has yet to respond, however reverting until an accurate survey can be carried out.

This appears to be another inaccurate edit, the actual points are visible on imagery however you have not used that information.

I suspect that your edits are part of an organised edit, who is organising it and for what purpose? Please read and comply with https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

Cheers Phil

Again what is the actual source of the data you have used for this edit?

Did you drive this road? You have mapped osm.org/way/885928005 as being 30 mph however aerial imagery, presence of a school and traffic calming suggests otherwise. I would suggest that some of this section is in fact 20 mph.

Cheers Phil

Are you sure?

Your edits are very spread out for an individual mapper, are you working as part of an organised editing project?

Cheers Phil

Hi Vini
A gps device seems a very strange way to map speed limits.

Were you actually driving to capture these gps traces? If not where did they come from?

Trying to infer legal speed limits from the speed someone was driving at is a bit risky, such things need a proper survey.

Cheers Phil

What sources are you using for these edits?

It would be very unusual for speed limits to change right on a junction which seems to be were your edits have them changing. Certainly in this case the 40mph limit neither begins or ends where you have mapped it.

Cheers Phil

What sources are you using for these edits?

Have you visited Aberdyfi and surveyed these rights of way?

What evidence do you have to suggest that the legal line of Aberdyfi FP 6 continues to the beach and does not end at Aberdyfi FP 44 as it did previously? There is clearly a permissive path continuing but that does not make it a right of way.

Aberdyfi FP 44 is still missing by the way.

Cheers Phil

Bore da.
This edit has gone rather wrong, you have deleted rights of way from Aberdyfi Golf Course.

As can be seen from osm.org/way/425788505/history and osm.org/way/425788503/history these are legal rights of way and as I am sure you are aware they cannot be closed without legal process so I am wondering why you have deleted them?

Cheers Phil

In OSM it is good practice to improve existing objects, rather than delete them and start again. Keeping the history in the database is of interest to many.

Cheers Phil

I realise the name is no longer on the map. I am still working on breaking the area into it individual fields and farmland types.
When I have determined the actual boundary and protection status I will add the correct name. The name "Battlefield Heritage Park" is fiction.

Cheers Phil

Hi again, I have been looking at your edits a bit closer and have spotted a very serious error made in this changeset. You have deleted a large section of bridleway osm.org/way/38571410/history. which has broken the rights of way network. It is clearly visible on imagery so I am intrigued as to why you shortened it.

Also you have disconnected a stile from the boundary and moved the boundary to include the roadside verges. Stiles are after all a means to cross hedge.

Cheers Phil

Cheers Phil