Hi
Welcome to OSM.
Please be aware there should only be one 'railway=station' per railway station. Any buildings should be tagged 'building=train_station'
Please make sure you don't accidentally delete ways (the steps down to the platforms in this case)
Cheers
DaveF

Hi Brian.
Is there a valid reason you split lots of riverbanks into relation members? It makes it so much more difficult to edit.
Can you not just draw a simple polygon for your landuse=farmland additions?
Please note that tag shouldn't be used for whole swathes of land, but individual fields (which rarely adjoin directly with the river)

Hi
Welcome to OSM

You appear to have added access=no to all. This means no one can can access it. It is unnecessary as foot=designated defines who can use the path.

Unpaved is a 'last resort/cover all' tag. It's much better to be more specific using grass, dirt or asphalt etc when ever possible.

If it's designated/signed as a public footpath, foot should be tagged as 'designated' instead of 'yes'.

If contiguous ways have the same tags they should be joined together. This can be done in iD by selecting the first way, then <shift> select the other way.

If you have time, mapping barriers such as hedges & fences makes the route of the path much clearer.

HTH
DaveF

This is a bus only route. Some is highway=bus_guideway

I don't think unclassified is the correct tag to use.

Hi

From aerial imagery, that looks like a private driveway to me. Do you have local knowledge?

@tms13. If you send an email to talk-GB@openstreetmap.org explaining your PoV/concerns you will receive replies which you should be able to see.

My things to do list:
Amend 'U' class roads
Check for any 'D/E' class roads
Double check for any missed refs
Check for other refs & discuss on Talk-GB of their validity
Update official_ref wiki & links
Search for 'this road is signed' tags & amalgamate
Search for 'source' tags & amalgamate

If you can think of anything else, please let me know.

The expression is 'don't tag *incorrectly* to suit the renderer'. All tags are to the benefit of them otherwise it would be just black lines & dots.

Putting the refs for certain classes of roads gives the option to render. As so few C, U refs etc are displayed on signs & only use internally of an authority it's felt it would be clearer to hide them on the main map. As a contributor of long standing you will be aware of the many rendering changes which have occurred over the years.

I believe i was the one who changed rel 28934 to natural=water back in ver 39/40. There was a Tagging discussion a few years ago. It ties in better with other water bodies making it easier to collate water related entities. The wiki indicates it as an alternative: waterway=riverbank#How_to_map.

The problem is that daModdin has deleted many 'outers' from this relation & then created a new one (8405045) to replace them but didn't transfer any of the 'inners' from 28934. relation/28934

I have just deleted 8405045 as it consisted of just two outers. I'll reinsert the deleted outers into 28934 & hopefully everything will render appropriately.

Hi
Please don't add tags to the ways of Multipolygon relations. The required tags are within the relation please read up on them in the wiki
Please use more specific changeset comments than 'Added details'

Hi
Tms13 has been provided with that link a couple of times by other users in previous changeset comments..

Explanation is on talk-gb. Join the discussion.

It was discussed, and agreed to make the amendments, as noted in my post on Talk-gb. Who have I ignored?

Please join the conversation you previously been informed about. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/021690.html

Hi
Please join the discussion to put your point on 'C' ref roads:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/021690.html

Along with amending 'U' class roads, updating the wiki & searching for 'this road is signed' tags, it's on my list of things to do. If you think of anything else, please let me know.

Hi
You've move this building to an incorrect location:
way/547533403/history
Please don't assume the aerial imagery are current. This is a construction site. There are new buildings.
Please revert.

Could you please refrain from adding historic data to the OSM. You've previously been asked to remove your previous edits, which belong in OHM. I've started a discussion on Talk-GB https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/021751.html

Hi
relation/8507208

Historic boundaries don't belong in OSM, which is a database for current objects. If you wish to collate old data please transfer it to osm.wiki/Open_Historical_Map before removing it.

changeset/61410203

Cheers
DaveF

Note: You are incorrectly add identical tags to both ways & relations. way/613388972