Hi, welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your edit. Just one small thing to comment on is that you should not repeat the address in the housename. That field is for houses which have names and should be blank in this case.

Cheers Phil

Mapper has yet to respond, however reverting until an accurate survey can be carried out.

This appears to be another inaccurate edit, the actual points are visible on imagery however you have not used that information.

I suspect that your edits are part of an organised edit, who is organising it and for what purpose? Please read and comply with https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

Cheers Phil

Again what is the actual source of the data you have used for this edit?

Did you drive this road? You have mapped way/885928005 as being 30 mph however aerial imagery, presence of a school and traffic calming suggests otherwise. I would suggest that some of this section is in fact 20 mph.

Cheers Phil

Are you sure?

Your edits are very spread out for an individual mapper, are you working as part of an organised editing project?

Cheers Phil

Hi Vini
A gps device seems a very strange way to map speed limits.

Were you actually driving to capture these gps traces? If not where did they come from?

Trying to infer legal speed limits from the speed someone was driving at is a bit risky, such things need a proper survey.

Cheers Phil

What sources are you using for these edits?

It would be very unusual for speed limits to change right on a junction which seems to be were your edits have them changing. Certainly in this case the 40mph limit neither begins or ends where you have mapped it.

Cheers Phil

What sources are you using for these edits?

Have you visited Aberdyfi and surveyed these rights of way?

What evidence do you have to suggest that the legal line of Aberdyfi FP 6 continues to the beach and does not end at Aberdyfi FP 44 as it did previously? There is clearly a permissive path continuing but that does not make it a right of way.

Aberdyfi FP 44 is still missing by the way.

Cheers Phil

Bore da.
This edit has gone rather wrong, you have deleted rights of way from Aberdyfi Golf Course.

As can be seen from way/425788505/history and way/425788503/history these are legal rights of way and as I am sure you are aware they cannot be closed without legal process so I am wondering why you have deleted them?

Cheers Phil

In OSM it is good practice to improve existing objects, rather than delete them and start again. Keeping the history in the database is of interest to many.

Cheers Phil

I realise the name is no longer on the map. I am still working on breaking the area into it individual fields and farmland types.
When I have determined the actual boundary and protection status I will add the correct name. The name "Battlefield Heritage Park" is fiction.

Cheers Phil

Hi again, I have been looking at your edits a bit closer and have spotted a very serious error made in this changeset. You have deleted a large section of bridleway way/38571410/history. which has broken the rights of way network. It is clearly visible on imagery so I am intrigued as to why you shortened it.

Also you have disconnected a stile from the boundary and moved the boundary to include the roadside verges. Stiles are after all a means to cross hedge.

Cheers Phil

Cheers Phil

Reverted in changeset/95674415

Reverted in changeset/95674415

Reverted in changeset/95674415

Reverted in changeset/95674415

> There's my rational:
> a) I found strange that the great majority
> of the area, been a park (where people
> walk accordingly to Stava) were classified > as as farmland.
Firstly it is not a park, it is a historical site where a civil war battle may have taken place. You have got the name wrong, according to the signs it is called Battle of Shrewsbury Heritage Site.

Why do you believ that it is unusual to walk in areas of farmland in England and Wales? most of our rights of way network is over farmland.

> b) None of the imagery I used (Bing, Esri,
> Maxar) showed any crop. c) On the other
> hand there's always tractor tracks on the
> fields. That puzzled me.
When you say crops, expecting to see?

I can clearly see that most of the fields are arable and can clearly see that it the fields with tramlines have wheat growing.

> So I found that landuse=meadow was a
> better option. you call it "a mix of arable
> and pasture farmland". Can't that be a
> meadow?
Meadows are very rare and precious, they have a large variety of wild flowers. Most grass farmland has very little biodiversity, it is better described as pasture.

> It's not used to grow any crop and there's
> no bushes growing.
It is very clearly used for growing crops, why would there be bushes? I can clearly see hedges.

> I believe that farmland should be used
> when there's recurrent
> use of the land with crops by means of
> manual labour or machinery.

There is recurrent use of the land to grow crops, see my previous comments

> Besides my opinion, please, tell me if you
> want it back as landuse=farmland.
I will fix it, the area large farmland polygons need to be broken down into individual fields. The site does not include the railway and I will check the correct tagging.

Also way/883130093 is clearly a hedge, not a tree row.

Cheers Phil

Hi, what source are you using for these edits.
The area certainly was not a meadow last time I was there, it is largely a mix of arable and pasture farmland.

Cheers Phil

Why did you change way/331151842 into a water hazard?