https://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/839/bye-laws_for_pleasure_grounds_sydenham.pdf

Pretty sure that's where I got it from: bylaws made by the local council that run the park.

Too late. I'd already updated to the alpha by the time you posted that comment. I'll have a hunt around using Overpass and see if I can get rid of those buggy tags.

Where on earth did this come from?

It is NOT a roundabout. It is a signal-controlled crossroads junction.

As has been said before, OSM is NOT an appropriate place to put short-term closures of roads. Beyond that this edit is based on a source of One.Network, which so far as I am aware does not have a licence which is compatible with OSM. So the edit is bad on two points, not just one.

Oh definitely a typo. Good catch.

I'll fix it after finishing this reply.

This edit is utterly wrong. Canal towpaths are NOT "designated" for cyclists. Designated means a legal right from public law to do something. A Traffic Regulation Order in the UK. That is not what the Canal and River Trust allows on its towpaths.

Cyclists are allowed on the towpaths through the permission of the Canal and River Trust only. That is a permissive tagging situation. Hence the previous, correct tagging.

Please reverse this changeset.

Well in that case it was tagged incorrectly. If it's no longer used by passengers then it is disused and should have been tagged as such.

This has now been corrected.

Lots and lots and lots of incorrect tagging for renderer in this changeset.

Bus routes do NOT have names as you have tagged them. The names you have tagged are classic tagging for the renderer. The bus services have a reference, whether numeric, alphabetic or alphanumeric. They have a starting stop. They have an ending stop. They have stops they go via. All of those can be and are tagged in the Marineo route relations around Boulogne.

Properly configured software reads those tags to show details for the bus route. I removed the name tags for a reason. Tagging for the renderer is that reason. Now you have incorrectly added them back.

I'm going to remove them again to stop the tagging for the renderer.

No. Wrong.

You do NOT deliberately or negligently create impossible geometries like your edit did. Your edit left a slip-road that is impossible to access.

Guess what? It shows up on the iD validator as an error. There's a reason for that.

It's one thing to accidentally create an impossible geometry. That happens to all of us on occasion. Same as sometimes accidentally breaking a big relation and causing an area to "flood" or similar.

Your attitude to this changeset on the other hand says to me that you have done this deliberately or negligently rather than accidentally. When the situation was pointed out to you by me your response was to arrogantly dismissed the issue. Even taking aside bus route relations, which have a tendency to be broken by the careless because they don't show up directly on the map or in validators of editors like iD there is the issue of the slip road to the A446.

That slip road shows up on the main map render. The error shows up in the iD validator as an unreachable road. The slip road going from the A446 to the former roundabout is showing as closed on One.Network until 16th September. The slip road you have disconnected from things is showing as open on that website!

So if One.Network shows the length of road as open that would indicate it can be accessed from somewhere. That would indicate it is likely the new route up from the south is now open.

So if you did a "site observation" you would have been able to see whether that were true and mark things up accordingly. But you didn't. You just went in, plonked an edit in place and didn't sort out the consequences of that edit properly.

I've had the "benefit" of your edits before as I recall. The A452 junction at Park Drive and Princes Drive in Leamington for example. This one I don't think I will be able to easily sort out as my chances of going through that area in the near or even medium-term future are low.

Do your edits properly and stop being negligent of the consequences and arrogant when those consequences are pointed out to you.

If you're going to do things like this then make sure you create geometries that are actually valid. This has left an utter mess with the sliproad leading from the junction to the A446.

You have also broken some bus route relations with this edit as well.

I told you to reverse this incorrect edit. You have logged on since I posted that comment so you know about this comment. Since you have ignored my instruction I am now going to reverse this edit myself.

You know my conclusion.

Stop deleting valid tags.

You aren't just adding those extra tags. You are removing extant valid tags. There is a difference.

Oh and as for Streetcomplete? Number 3 contributor in the UK and number 20 contributor worldwide. So yes I am quite aware of that piece of software thank you.

You're removing valid tags with a lot of your edits. Please stop doing this now.

maxspeed=70 mph and maxspeed=60 mph and maxspeed=30 mph should not be removed from any road within the UK unless they are incorrect speed limits. maxspeed:type is NOT a substitute for these tags. It is an addition to them.

Well that's funny.

The Coventry Building Society has been there every day since that incorrect change as I've walked past it. It was there when I walked past it this morning.

Reverse that edit as it's utterly incorrect.

Can you now. So why did you delete the ways entirely then? Why did you not just remove the tags as your dishonest edit summary suggested you had?

As for my tagging after I undeleted them the first time? Quite correct actually. When I first created those bays the current tagging scheme didn't exist. So they were tagged reasonably appropriately for the time. Now? The new parking schema exists.

So let's have a look at this schema's notes on the wiki.

"Parking only in parking bays adjacent to the carriageway, which could not easily be converted into a travel lane."

That's versus:

"Parking on the street (which could be easily converted to a travel lane)."

Are the parking bays in question adjacent to the carriageway? Yes. See a parking aisle is a carriageway in exactly the same way any other road or street is. Now it is arguable that some of the bays in this particular car park are just paint on the tarmac. However a good portion of them certainly aren't. A good portion of them are structurally built as street side bays.

As for tagging the whole car park? Where exactly are its limits? That's often an awkward question when dealing with them. Individual bays are very clearly delimited. Hence preferring tagging them.

Oh and as for, "Disabled parking is required and I can make out at least one so I know you didn't survey any of the specialized capacities"? Wrong. Now for the bays over the crest of the hill it is a bit tricky to see them from the gate. However for the ones nearer to the entrance I very much did survey them. See I did it when I walked past the club. So you deleted things that I absolutely did survey. Also there is one bay which appears to have disabled spaces. The others clearly don't have such bays even from aerial imagery.

So the most you should have done is removed the disabled capacity tag from the bay next to the buildings. One tag on one way only. Yet you deleted them all. All of the tags. All of the ways.

"disabled parking hasn't been surveyed so I removed related tags."

What a dishonest edit summary. This is not "removed related tags". This is wholesale deletion of multiple ways.

Did you survey it then? Are you a member of the club? If you did why did you not correct the capacity tagging rather than deleting all of the bays?

I guess I'll just have to undelete things again and report you for vandalism.

You know you really should watch out when doing deleting like this.

You replaced well-tagged, albeit improvable, parking bays with a single, virtually untagged car park. That was not appreciated and I have reversed your improper deletions and removed your addition.

Further these are the bylaws covering the area:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/39585/imber_range.pdf

They are the Imber Byelaws 1963. There is a big sign in Imber with those bylaws on it. To wit byelaw no. 3 starts, "The Danger Area shall be permanently closed to the public. Subject to the provisions of Byelaw No. 8, no person shall:-

"(a) enter into or upon or pass over or through the Danger Area, or
"(b) be or remain in the Danger Area, or
"(c) cause or permit to suffer any vehicle, animal, aircraft or thing to enter into or upon or to pass through or to be or remain in or upon the Danger Area, or
"(d) cause or permit any aircraft to fly over the Danger Area at a height less than 30,000 feet above mean sea level."

That is absolutely NOT permissive access to the area as defined by OSM tagging schemes. Permissive access means generally open to the public with a permission which may be revoked. This is the opposite. It is generally closed to the public with permission for access to the village occasionally granted.

Regardless of what the status of the access tag there is one thing that very definitively is completely wrong.

The road through Imber has been tagged with a speed limit of 30 mph in this changeset. That is utterly wrong. I know because I was there yesterday and tagged the 15 mph speed limit based on the signs at the edge of the village.

Definitely not intentional! Corrected as of about 60 seconds ago.