Thank you for all your helpful mapping work.

I see you have tagged node/680120554 as a defibrilator but it still has amenity=telephone as a tag.

I assume this is no longer a usable public telephone as described in note/5083766.

I feel like we're talking past each other. I do not disagree with the law or your interpretation of it.

However, I disagree with your insistence that any approach to tagging the map other than yours has no validity.

The tags that mappers use are a matter of consensus and consistency as I have already stated. You repeatedly ignore this and fail to answer my questions.

If you are so sure that your approach makes sense, why do you refuse to discuss it with other mappers and why do you refuse to acknowledge the advice given in the two blocks you have received over the past week?

Thank you for all your helpful work on OpenStreetMap.

I notice node/680120554 is still tagged as "amenity=telephone" which seems unlikely given the other tags present.

Thank you for your helpful contributions to OpenStreetMap.

You have described these changes as "Updates" which is true, but makes it harder for reviewers to understand what you updated and why.

Please see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for good advice on how to communicate the changes you make to others.

Again, thank you for your good work.

That makes sense. Thank you for reminding me that we all have different mapping styles.

In case you don't know about it, HDYC is a useful tool for keeping track of discussions that haven't been replied to (amongst other things):
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=6397757&commented

You have cited the law several times in this and other discussions, but you haven't answered my question.

Your recent blocks at osm.org/user_blocks/19112 and osm.org/user_blocks/19125 have suggested you use the UK forum to discuss this. Can you point me at that discussion?

What consideration have you given to Richard's suggestion at changeset/175410402 that bicycle=dismount makes more sense in these situations than bicycle=no?

Please don't keep forcefully stating your case without listening to the other side, refusing to change your habits. Engage with the community and build consensus to improve the consistency of our shared map.

Thank you for your quick reply.

New mappers often make mistakes. I made many.

When you encounter such mistakes, it's helpful to leave a comment like this one to check what the mapper was trying to do and help them understand how to improve their contributions.

These changes revert the work of Dimasik007 in changeset/174904612

Did you consider contacting the mapper to understand why they believe construction has finished?

It can be quite disheartening for new mappers to discover their work has been reverted without discussion.

In the spirit of osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element I suggest it makes sense to only map Chorltonville once, not twice.

The feature already exists as way/1107039785 with identical tags to the new feature you added in this change.

I suggest either removing the new node you added, or perhaps tagging the node as the centrepoint of a relation including the existing way if that makes sense and is possible (I'm unsure).

What do you think?

I have added a note about this area to note/5082201 for someone who cares about the quality of the map to investigate.

I notice you have added "bicycle=no" to way/1453364281 - can you point me at the discussion that concludes this is the best way to map pavements beside roads? It's important to reach a community conscensus on the best way to map together.

It's good that we're having this conversation, but this changeset isn't the best place for it. As SomeoneElse suggests on osm.org/user_blocks/19111 I encourage you to use the forum to discover conscensus and reconcile tagging disagreements.

Thank you for all your good work improving the map.

You have mapped way/172193768, way/171938146, and way/4956905 as "sidewalk=separate" but none of these roads have sidewalks mapped separately. As far as I can tell, only Moston Lane does.

I assume this is a mistake. Will you be able to fix all the streets incorrectly mapped with the "sidewalk=separate" tag?

The tags were added by mistake and have since been fixed in changeset/175477758 and changeset/175510217.

Thank you for fixing this in changeset/175477758 - I have also fixed another case of the same problem in changeset/175510217.

It looks like you used the iD editor, which shows the house name alongside the other address fields you added.

Let me know if you have any more questions or if you would like me to change this for you.

Thanks again for your helpful work.

Thank you for your dilligent work. When making changes like this to work done by a new mapper, it's well worth leaving a comment on the changes you are fixing to share your valuable experience with new mappers.

Thank you very much for making this helpful improvement to the map.

I suspect "addr:housename" would make more sense than "name" for a house's name: addr:housename=*

What do you think?

Again, thank you for adding useful information to the map.

You and TomJeffs keep reverting each others' work. It seems you aren't talking to each other to reach a conscensus, or involving others.

If you are unable to agree on how to map, please involve the Data Working group: osm.wiki/Disputes

For those of use who review changes to the map, it's frustrating to see you both repeatedly reverting the same changes.

I have left a similar comment on changeset/175410402

You and Pete Owens keep reverting each others' work. It seems you aren't talking to each other to reach a conscensus, or involving others.

If you are unable to agree on how to map, please involve the Data Working group: osm.wiki/Disputes

For those of use who review changes to the map, it's frustrating to see you both repeatedly reverting the same changes.

I have left a similar comment on changeset/175412690