The signs I am working off are the final permanent signage that has been installed in recent months as part of the construction. construction on everything other than the A465 flyover and Swansea road is complete and the current alignment is the final alignment. you can see the signs yourself here https://imgur.com/a/I1MkABM. But its very obvious on the ground where the road starts. I dont have a problem with the ramps like this as the ramps currently are the main carriageway until the flyover is built. I sure there is a reason why the B4276 hasn't been extended to the A465 or swansea road however just because we dont like it doesnt mean its not correct.

osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_ground
On the ground It is mapped as (B4276) which means as stated by the "know your traffic signs" government publication "Route numbers in brackets are roads that will be reached by following the route indicated." meaning it is not that road number but it leads to that road number. Following the "Map what's on the ground" principle even if you found a contradicting source, the signage on the ground would take precedence. This is not the first time I've made this correction either. The changeset where I corrected this last has "Survey" listed as a source and I can provide images of the signs in question on request. You overruled my changes with no sources, no discussion and no justification.

sorry i didnt see your comment in time. I'm not being pedantic. The final signage has been put up and i surveyed it yesturday. The signage is clear on where the B4276 ends

I've doubled checked my footage and it appears the B4276 terminates at the roundabout. the signs leading to the roundabout are marked with "leading to backets" (B4276). as its neither a A or B road I've downgraded it to a tertiary

Hi Nathan,
way/1283395924 are not correct. The B4276 stops at the the small roundabout and does not continue to the A465. I suspect eventually it will follow Swansea road.

I've updated the junction, they only changed the road markings slightly, the west-bound lane now starts at the entrance to the fuel station. the rest has been hatched out.

if you are allowed to wheel them then `bicycle=dismount` would prob be a better choice

Hi Alex,
You might want to double check the names on this bus stop and its companion, node/485404019.
Newent Ave is a more likely correct name for this stop as there are multiple stops on Kingsways and the others are name after the crossing street which is a normal practice.
Kind regards,
Kits

They only started changing the hill after the flyover's completion, its been ongoing for a few weeks. i'm not sure what their goal is but they've had around 10 or 15 bulldozers and excavators just moving earth around up there.

That's a fair argument however I would recommend holding off on changing this for now as the area in question along with the entire hill to the east of the fuel station is undergoing large scale land alterations and this slip road may change. To emphasize this, the gate you referenced no longest exists nor does the fence or even the land it sat on.

Hi,
The south west bound lane is never used for travel at it originates from no where and in practice is only used for lorries to park facing NE-bound or as a short cut for cars turning right out of the fuel station (which they shouldn't really do). This is just a remnant of the old heads when it was a 3 lane single carriageway that just never got demolished.

Kind regards,
Kits

Reason for high number of deletions:
This grid was the first mapped for this project. at the time all overlapping cables were mapped as separate ways. overlapping ways are now grouped into a single way utilising circuits tag and power=circuit relations.

Many ways also had excessive amount of nodes which have been simplified to a accuracy of 1m.

Hi there, it appears you moved this solar panel and made it part of a road. node/6593133691 I've now fixed it but please be more careful in future
kind regards,
Kits

Hi again,
I want to apologize. I think I was a bit too quick on the revert button on this one when the only detail that was wrong was the wikidata link. I've updated the details mostly back to what you set while also adding a bit. I've also added "Utilita Arena Cardiff" as a alternate name to the wikidata object. i'm not sure the wikidata procedures but that the main name of the object possibly should be updated too but i'm unsure on that one.

Kind regards,
Kits

on second thoughts, the name could be changed to "Utilita Arena Cardiff" and alt name to "Cardiff International Arena" but the wikidata should remain the same since it refers to the same building, just the new name was missing from the wikidata.

Hi, i'm revert this as the original details were correct. The Cardiff International Arena is also known as the Utilita Arena for sponsorship reasons. The wikidata you linked is also extremely incomplete and doesn't even refer to a Wikipedia page. the original wikidata was missing the utilita alias so i've now added that.

Kind regards,
Kits

changeset/161544217

Hi Derick.
Mapping sidewalks as separate ways is an approved proposal giving it the highest status of legitimacy in this community. Sidewalks do not have to be separated from the highway to be mapped as a separate way. As the wiki states, a sidewalk mapped as a separate way is a refinement of footway tags. Allowing more detail to be added than is possible with highway tags alone. I would suggest you have a read of osm.wiki/Sidewalks before continuing. If you wish to discuss the mapping of sidewalks I would suggestion you do so on the forums as there is a ongoing conversation.

If you do choose to remove these sidewalks then I have to agree with rskedgell that it cannot be described as anything other than vandalism. These sidewalks are perfectly acceptable and in many ways preferable to tags on the highway.

Kind regards,
Kits

ok i've just fixed it

Hi there Ben,
You should reuse building ways whenever possible rather than deleting and creating a new one in its place to maintain the history
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161176329

Hi there JP,
Welcome to OSM.
Unfortunately Royal Mail's find a postcode service's terms and conditions is not compatible with OSM's license and as such it cannot be used as a source when mapping.

With the addresses, the correct way to solve this situation is with the addr:parentstreet tag but unfortunately the web editor doesn't display a field for this tag.

I've fixed these issues for you.
Kind regards,
Kits.