Thank you for your further edit. It doesn't address my concern that way/850859570 isn't inside any car park though.

Has this scrub been replaced by an extension of the industrial area mapped at way/8880937 ? If it has, it would be helpful to fix the extent of that area and maybe add an new buildings too.

Hi, it looks like this change accidentally removed the "building=commercial" tag on way/379967721 so I've added it back.

When you write "please find the changeset()" it would be helpful to share a link to it or at least its ID. Just asking me to find it is unhelpful.

You have added way/850859570 as a parking aisle but it's not inside either of the nearby car parks that are mapped. It seems very strange to have a parking aisle that's outside a car park: please make sure you maintain the surrounding features when adding new things to the map.

It seems odd that you've added new service roads going through the "natural=scrub" mapped at way/137702352 - is it possible that this is no longer scrubland and has since been built on? Please try to keep the map well maintained around the new features you add.

It seems a bit weird that you chose to map the parking aisles in the southern half of the Asda car park but neglected most of them in the northern half.

When you added this node, there was already a Hough Hill mapped at node/1962052167 so I have merged the tags from this newer node onto that one to avoid duplication.

Thanks for the explanation. I drove past it a while ago and didn't notice any Texaco branding at a glance, but as I was driving I could easily have missed it.

Hi, thank you for improving the map. I've opened a note at note/2353764 as I noticed these changes leave a Texaco petrol station mapped right next to a Co-op petrol station, which seems unlikely.

Yes, it will be good to meet up again. Your explanation for the separate node makes sense to me. From driving past last week I think the shop is still there but I'm unsure about the brewery.

I've removed this in changeset/90715743

Hi, John. The brewery you added at way/256209971 looks like its a duplicate of node/6168786967 - I wonder if it might be worth merging the details of the node onto the way, and presumably tagging the way as a building.

It seems strange to for you tag this as a service road attached to what was tagged as a track way/222711494 - based on a visit today I've also tagged the track as a service road, which seems more sensible than the previous tagging.

You have created a place of worship in the middle of a reservoir. I suspect this is a mistake, but wanted to check you didn't intend to add a building that existed before the reservoir was created.

Thank you for helping to improve the map. I'm surprised you marked this church as closed as it seems operational from walking past it. What makes you think it's closed?

Thanks for these improvements. I've just improved the junction further in changeset/89202219 as the previous tags suggested it was impossible to turn right from Mottram Road into Huddersfield Road.

Thank you for improving OpenStreetMap.

This change adds a new Clitheroe Market way at way/815637499 but there's already one mapped at way/32133883 so now the map shows both. I've never been here, but I suspect there's only one market, not two.

Thank you for your detailed, informative reply. I agree that the "Tagging for the renderer" issue is more complicated than many mappers acknowledge.

I also recognise that the default rendering of the map hides a lot of useful information. I suspect it's almost impossible to create a good default that works well for everyone. As you say, it's far from easy for everyone to create new renderings of the map.

If you're looking for an alternative rendering that shows bridge references, you might find https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html helpful.

For example, the bridge across Arthur Road at way/16222422 has its reference shown on https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=19&lat=51.434565&lon=-0.19949 whereas the default rendering hides this detail.

I don't believe the bridge by the New Inn should have a name tag, as it's not commonly known by any name. It does have an official reference number, however.

I hope you will continue to add useful information to the map and do not let disagreements about the details put you off. I happen to agree with the commonly accepted standard of using the "name" and "ref" for specific details, but I realise some people will disagree with it.

Firstly, thank you for your work on OpenStreetMap.

Some of the bridges you added seem odd to me: the "Bridge 72" you added at way/747859531 is already mapped at way/33534416 and your version uses the "name" tag whereas the existing way uses the more sensible bridge_ref tag. name=* suggests using the name tag for commonly used names. I used to live in New Bradwell and never heard of anyone using "Bridge 72" as its name although people might refer to it as "the bridge by the New Inn". What are the advantages of the extra ways you have created over the existing, more appropriately tagged, ways?