Hi, welcome to OSM and mapping in The Shire.

One small thing, the entire area is not a building. I can see that it includes the car park for example.

The best fix is to remove the building tag and trace the pub building and tag it as building=pub. No need to move the name, we are generally coming to the view that the pub is the entire area, building, garden and car park.

Cheers Phil

Hi Jim
Many of the latin tags will be verifiable by history, i.e. they were Roman settlements hence are documented. Simply made up ones should be removed but that just means the community haven't spotted them yet.

Welsh names in England are verifiable by usage by native speakers, many are verifiable by road signs within Wales or by display boards on trains.

Topographical features are verifiable through usage and sourced from open and out of copyright data.

HTH Phil

Could be industrial but more likely commercial but certainly not farmland.

If not sure I would simply align the farmland to its new boundary and leave this area clear of landuse so that it can be filled in later.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM. In OSM we add things that are verifiable on the ground.

This appears to be just a translation of the English words so really does not belong in OSM.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM. In OSM we add things that are verifiable on the ground.

This appears to be just a translation of the English words so really does not belong in OSM.

Cheers Phil

Again, public_transport=station does not seem right on a long gone station.

Again, public_transport=station does not seem right on a long gone station.

Bore da Männedorf
Again what sources are you using here. public_transport=station seems to be rather wrong on the site of a disused railway station.

This edit needs to be reverted.

Diolch Phil

Bore da Männedorf

This edit appears to be fantasy, what sources were you using to believe that there is now a station at Forden?

Also there is no tunnel, the yellow walkway is clearly visible on bing imagery. What source were you using to believe there is now a tunnel?

Diolch Phil

No problem. There is an ele tag for elevation, although it is not used very often as data consumers can work that out from open elevation data.

Diolch Phil

Bore da, thank you for your edit. However 62m is rather tall for a house in that part of Wales. Are you sure it isn't meant to be addr:housenumber.

Diolch Phil

The roundabout mapping is fine.

The only suggestion I would make is that due to the new development the landuse needs to be adjusted.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Welcome to OSM. Thank you for your edit however there are a few problems. The name tag should only be used for actual names. It should not be used for descriptions, if a way is private then it should be tagged access=private.

Cheers Phil

Thank you, in many cases using motor_vehicle=private rather than simply access should work.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Access=customers would probably be better here.

Cheers Phil

Hi, am just wondering what sources you are using for this edit?

I realise that the rights of way are not fully mapped however way/377112798 is part of a a public footpath so should certainly not be tagged as access=private.

Cheers Phil

Hi Dave
This is a disused railway, where the tracks have been removed. Just wondering why have you changed it to an active railway.

Cheers Phil

Thank you, that is very true.

Much of the towpath in Cheshire is legally public footpath but the Shropshire section should be foot=permissive as you say.

Cheers Phil

Hi Ivan
Cyclists do not have a statutory right of way on canal towpaths in England and Wales. The towpaths you changed were correctly tagged as bicycle=permissive and this tag needs to be fixed.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this gate being access=private seems highly unlikely as this road is part of NCN 82 so walkers and cyclists are obviously allowed through.

It appears on OS opendata as a public road and my gut reaction is simply a gated road.

What sources are you using to believe that the road is private?

Cheers Phil