Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

It's not logical to have foot and cycle access allowed on a highway tagged access+no. I assume you mean the is no vehicle access in which case the tag would be vehicle:access=no. I've amended the tag.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Actually, these highways do connect to a pedestrian area highway, so they are not really disconnected. Whether they are considered routable by apps or by yourself is not reasonable grounds to delete them. Anything that is ground truth and verifiable is welcomed in the OSM database. If you can't make amendments to correct the problems you see this again is not reason for deletion. Best to leave it, maybe someone else can make improvements.

Thus I've reverted the deletions.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, This again is a designated public footpath, although in this case it looks like the Highway Authority has given permission for cycle use. I've amended the tags.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The original tags on this highway were correct. It is a designated public footpath extending along Meadowside to Eastwick Drive. So unless there is explicit permission for cycling you are not legally allowed to cycle along here, even though there may be nothing to inhibit/prohibit cycle use.

I've reinstated the proper tags so that the OSM database has the correct information.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've tagged the driveway as per OSM practice. I've added the building and tagged that with the name etc. Please make any corrections necessary. Need help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You can square up the buildings (they'll look better then). Right-click on the building outline, then click the square icon from the drop-down menu (shortcut Q).

Regards Bernard.

Hello, You've been moving boundary lines and leaving a lot of untagged nodes. I've corrected some of these. Could you please check your work to correct any more inadvertent anomalies?

Regards Bernard.

They certainly look attached to me.

Hi, Thanks.
I've made a few changes to tag the houses and company that seem the most appropriate to OSM practice. Please see if you agree?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Thanks for responding. I've divided the building into two houses. Which one does your business office occupy, please?

Regards Bernard

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

It looks like there are a few things wrong here. The building you have added the tags to is a pair of houses. It's unlikely that the company would be situated in a domestic building and highly unlikely to be in two houses. Looking at the website associated with the company name it says the contact is at 4 Anxey Way, Haddenham.

Can you please respond regarding the above observations? If your addition to OSM cannot cannot be verified then they ought be removed/corrected.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I see you've tagged/addressed the whole building as one house. I wonder though if this is actually a residential building of more than one house? I can help with corrections if you wish.

Regards Benard.

Reverted in order to return dragged AED to it's original position.

Regards Bernard,

Hi, Please excuse me for pointing out that proper names should have the first letter of all words capitalised.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Your new highway Way: 1341801325 is a duplication of an existing highway, Thus I've removed it but placed your new relevant tags on the existing way.

If a feature needs amending please do the amendment to the existing feature not merely make a duplication nor remove and redraw. In this way OSM cam hold/maintain all history of features.

Farming access path is a description not a name.

Regards Bernard.

Corrections

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I think you got the tags mixed up with another company. I think I've properly corrected it.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please be aware that the imagery you used here is probably way out of date. The buildings you deleted were added recently, 18/10/2024, so it's very likey that they do exist. Thus I've reinstated them. Please don't delete anything unless you are personally sure of your facts.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, the tag you've used on all these highway nodes "lane_markings=1" does not make sense. Please see:- osm.wiki/Item:Q19804 where it states this tag is not applicable, it does not apply to nodes.

Also, you have tagged the highways as "lane_markings=1." It is not usual for these minor highways to have lane markings, and I can see no evidence of markings from aerial imagery. In OSM the lane_markings tag specifies if a highway has painted markings to indicate the position of the lanes. If there are no painted lines, the tag would be "lane_markings=no".

Could you please correct all the lane marking tags?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, All corrected now.

Regards Bernard.