Glad it helped and made sense. Thanks for your contributions, and happy mapping.

Look at the area around here: osm.org/#map=19/51.764693/-1.237142
That's what it would look like with links added. Those roads had the same problem of unconnected pavements, which created all sorts of routing issues. Our solution was to link them as you see, although I don't like it, it looks messy to me. But there, at least in part, pavements have slightly unusual shapes, which might justify mapping. Conversing with another user, we concluded that pavements are fine on larger roads, or where there is clear physical separation from the main road, but otherwise too much detail on residential roads.

There is a longstanding debate on the appropriate level of micromapping, and whether more detail is always better. See this for a recent iteration: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/about-micromapping-and-accuracy-vs-consistency/
And this is a conversation about pavements: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-there-consensus-on-mapping-pavements-sidewalks-separately-to-roads/1067

Some micro detail might not be very useful, but it doesn't hurt. In this case, I think adding separate pavements to all roads is making the map more difficult to maintain and often worse for the end user, but that's my personal opinion.

If you still wanted to include pavements, then other details should be included, like links with roads, kerbs, appropriate tags on the road to for separate pavements, etc.

Hello.

If pavements are not connected to roads, it makes routing impossible. It is also debatable where they should be linked, but certainly at all crossings.

Personally, I would reconsider mapping pavements on normal residential roads, they can add confusion and don't seem to add anything useful, since the road segment is clear enough for both pedestrians and vehicles (but it is, of course, your choice).

All best.

Hi.

I think it is worth recording that with:
building=pub
building:use=house

Best wishes.

Hi, thanks for your edit. I have re-added the "amenity=university" tag. Given the highly fragmented nature of the university, it is best that all its parts retain that tag where appropriate.

Hi.

Is this real? way/1458589932

It looks mostly just like a field, with mowed grass. I am not sure it warrants mapping as a runway, even if private individuals were to occasionally use it for that. Especially considering the rendering is very intrusive.

The only reference I see online is from a flight simulator, with "fictional" in the title. https://flightsim.to/file/46769/egur-boars-hill-private-airstrip-oxford-fictional

There's now a duplicate 42. Is the end-of-terrace 43?

Hi.

Previously, the "Friends of South Park" group asked for these informal desire paths in the middle of the park not to be mapped, to encourage more routes and avoid persistent damage to the grass.

Although it would be legitimate to map them, I think we can honour that request, since they are very informal anyway. I will update them, leaving a note for future mappers who might see the aerial image and add them again.

Thanks.

Hi. Thanks for your contribution to the map.

The house number is already tagged in "addr:housenumber". It is unnecessary (and it would wrong) to add it to "name".

It would also help if the changeset comments were more descriptive of what you are uploading. See: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thank you, and happy mapping!

For more details on the congestion charge: https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/transport-and-travel/oxfords-temporary-congestion-charge-cars

For general context on this type of measure, justifying tagging as toll (which is the common approach in other cities): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing#Roads ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_toll_collection#Use_in_urban_areas_and_for_congestion_pricing

For the forum discussion: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/oxford-congestion-charge-tagging-scheme/137466

If you wanted to map further details on the locations, an `enforcement` relation could be created (`enforcement=toll`): osm.wiki/Relation:enforcement

Thanks. Mostly from a quick glance! I need to take a few pictures of the remaining areas.

Hi.

The café is already mapped here: node/13028550205

If the new location is the correct one, the old node can be moved. Otherwise, this duplicate should be deleted.

Thanks.

Every college will have bars and canteens, same for schools, hospitals, factories and other workplaces. Personally, I don't think they should be mapped. They are internal parts to the broader element which is already mapped, and they have no public use. I think it adds confusion for map users, more than clarity. Not everything with FHRS needs to be represented on OSM.

I think they should be tagged as removed:* and disused:*.
Bus stops are quite prominent in the rendered map, so keeping them as normal seems a bit misleading, if they are gone.

I have always seen it referred to with the article.

As for capitalisation, I capitalised the first word taking the two as a unit "The airline", but now I also see that sometimes they write "The Airline" on some of their pages and social media, so I'd be fine with that.

Certainly, thank you. I have opened this note note/4839913 to list a few others that I saw that need updating.

Yes, please do add everything else you feel is needed. I am not entirely familiar with all bus route tags. Thanks.

The two have completely different meanings (as the wiki page shows). Here, a permit is required at those times (which means that access is *not* permissive).

Hi, thanks for the space correction, however permit was correct, not permissive.

For the other cases, it makes sense, since there are probably other things on upper floors of the same building.