Reverted

I am fixing this, it is entirely fictional.

The speed limit is 30 mph as expected.

This is NOT the Telford Main Line, please stop adding false information to OSM. Please remember that it is a public database, used in many applications. Changeset comments should be meaningful and explain what you are doing and why. Yea is just unprofessional,
All of your changes have been incorrect and I am going to revert them.

way/34050994/history can clearly be seen not to be 2 lanes for its entire length, what sources are you using? Have you been there?
Adding incorrect information can cause potentially serous routing errors, we need to ensure that our database is correct and usable.

Hi, you have still not responded to the request to comment on previous changesets made in osm.org/user_blocks/2035 which you were asked to do before you continue editing. Please remember that OSM is a collabrative project that works better if mappers interact.
However you seem to be making the same edits and adding pointless tags, bicycle=yes is pointless on a residential road. It is a default and adding piles of these tags makes it harder to spot the wrong tags such as osm.org/#map=19/51.82048/-1.28097 can clearly be seen to not have lane markings yet you have incorrectly tagged it with lanes=2, why?

way/174955976 is not a bridge, it is an embankment. There is no evidence of the bridge having a name.

Hi, thank you for your addition to the map, however please capitalise names properly, lowercase looks untidy and shoddy. Also please get the spelling right, the.

Hi, in osm a motorway junction node is used to indicate where a slip road leaves a grade separated road, it is not used on a roundabout.
Also what is the source of this name?
Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM. The name of the railway through Telford does not suddenly change to the Telford main line. Names in osm should reflect what is verifiable on the ground. Please do not add names you have invested.
Please use meaningful changeset comments.

This is vandalism, am reverting this.

Hi, welcome to OSM. Thank you for your edit, however Aldi is already mapped. I am therefore going to remove these duplicates.
Please continue editing but please do not duplicate existing data.
Cheers Phil

Also you must absolutely not be using streetview. It is a copyright source which we do not have permission to use.

Hi, thank you for your edit however deletion is a little drastic.
Another mapper had taken the time to add other tags to the object. Such as the address and postcode which remain valid and will still be valid when another business opens there.
Also leaving the node in place keeps history within the database, over time we can see the life cycle of the object.
Please simply update the relevant tags, is it an empty restaurant the change the tags to reflect that such as disused:amenity or just remove the amenity tag and name.
Cheers Phil

Thank you for your response, however the sabre wiki is not an admissible source in OSM as the source of the information it contains cannot be verified and is likely to be from sources not admissible in OSM.
OSM prefers data that mappers have been and observed for themselves, not copied from somewhere.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=OX22nrygvcafRnDOxbuwFQ&lat=52.303851511687185&lng=-0.09620790524513723&z=17 shows the actual sign at J26 and nowhere does Gailley Hill appear, maybe it would be more useful to add exit_to tags that are actually useful.
As these names do not appear on signs that are useful to users of our database I would ask that they are removed.
Cheers Phil

Hi, what is the source and usefulness of these names. When I have travelled along this stretch only the numbers suggesting the names are fictional or just descriptions.
Cheers Phil

Hi, thank you for this addition but where did these turn restrictions come from? I do not remember any such signs along this road and there are none shown on mapillary.
Turn restrictions are only used for legal restrictions and should not be used to improve routing.
Cheers Phil

Are you absolutely certain about this?

Whilst two sections of cycleway is a little unlikely you seem to have removed both and left a big gap rendering this route unusable on foot or by cyclists. Please remember that OSM is a community project and it is important that mappers are aware and considerate of all users and not simply their own usecase.

What sources have you used?

Cheers Phil

Hi, I think this edit has gone very wrong. Please can you explain why you have changed a residential area to an administrative boundary?
Cheers Phil

Seems to have been reverted by originator without comment or explaination

Hi, what is the source of this import?

Cheers Phil