Hi Roger
I have restored the crossing.

If you want to have another go at adding the path then that would be good. It is easier to edit with your PC, touch screens are not really ideal for mapping unless you are using more specialist tools.
Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM and thank you for your contribution. However I am always a little concerned when a mappers first contribution is to delete another mappers work.
Please can you explain why you have deleted the tags from this crossing? I would be surprised if lowered kerbs have been removed.
Cheers Phil

Hi Alwyn
I have also noticed that when changing cycleway to path you have not added bicycle=yes which has resulted in broken bicycle routing, see osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_bicycle&route=51.3545%2C-1.9834%3B51.3542%2C-2.0013#map=17/51.35454/-1.98726&layers=N
When we consider that this is part of NCN 4, that is a very big problem for the integrity of OSM data.
Cheers Phil

Reverted in changeset/71535519

Hi Alwyn
Than you for your response but please can you answer the following questions

Where in OSM documentation does it say that shared use cyccleways should not be mapped as highway=cycleway?

You say that when you tried to save your work OSM said these were redundant, please can you tell me waht you mean by OSM and what message you recieved. The iD editor does occasionally give warning, but I have never seen on when mapping cycleways.

You added a name to way/268556695/ This is not the towpath, way/163500222 is the towpath at this point. Note it goes under the bridges.
However the name should only be applied if it an actual name of the way that is verifiable on the ground. If you are mapping a long distance route then the name should be part of the relation, not of every way.
You mention 'official' websites, do you have permission to use their information in OSM?

You may find osm.wiki/Path_controversy and @Richard/diary/20333 of interest.

Whilst OSM is a database and a blue line is the way a cycleway is mapped on one particular renderer.

I would appreciate your comments, I am also intrigued as to why someone from New Zealand is so interested in European towpaths.

Cheers Phil

Reverted in changeset/71535519

Hi Stefan
Welcome to OSM and thank you for your edit.

In order to get Hollybush House to show up on the map you will need a tag to describe it. I would suggest that you add amenity=care_home. I would not describe it as a clinic as that implies day visits only.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM. Thank you for your edit however names are for actual names, Pumping Station and Electrical Substation are descriptions and that should not be in the name tag.
Also some of the features you have mapped are not publicly accessible, I would tend not to map a staff canteen, but if it is on the map it needs to be mapped as private.
Also what sources are you using?
Cheers Phil

Hi
These changes are a bit out of step with the consensus of the UK community.
Please could you confirm the source of these changes?
Have you been here? and did you observe signs such as "Kennet and Avon canal towpath"?
A name is an actual name and if my satnav directs me to use a named way I would expect to see a sign confirming that. The name tag should not be used for descriptions.
Being more specific way/2685 56695/history was mapped as a cycleway for many years until you changed it. It is also not the canal towpath, its a bit difficult to pull a boat from 3m above n'est pas?
The actual towpath is at the canal level and is also mapped.
Highway=path is a bit of a late comer in OSM terms and is rarely used in the UK.
Cheers Phil

Alwyn, a cycleway is not exclusively for cycling, foot access is allowed too.

Hi, this seems to be tagging for the renderer. The Glastonbury Festival is not a town, it is an annual event which we do not map in OSM. We only map feature which exist at all times.
Cheers Phil

Hi
This is a private shared driveway, it looks too narrow for a residential road.
Survey confirmed see http://trigpoint.myzen.co.uk/photodump/MarshMeadowClose.jpg
It is a narrow gap between houses, kerb/pavement crossed. Service items such as water stop tap covers which are at the edge of private property also confirm this.
Cheers Phil

A bit of a followup
This was taken looking from Rowan Road.
http://trigpoint.myzen.co.uk/photodump/RowanRoad.jpg
It is clearly a shared parking/access area for those properties. Its is clearly not a public highway.
And for completeness from Drovers Close

HTH Phil

Location : osm.org/edit?changeset=70895603#map=19/52.70831/-2.50074
The residential road ends at this point, beyond that the narrow service road can be seen. Certainly not something I would drive into without prior knowledge of turning places.
See http://trigpoint.myzen.co.uk/photodump/LeicesterWay.jpg

Location: osm.org/edit?way=694540800#map=18/51.76245/0.06186
I have not been here, but clearly a private car park for a business. So more a parking aisle with private access.

Location: osm.org/edit?way=694458204#map=19/51.41103/0.52687
This looks like a new build, so correctly mapped as residential. Too new to be on our opendata tiles.
Cheers Phil

Why have you deleted Porthcawl, a rugby pitch and some traffic lights?

Why have you deleted these objects?
A residential area?
A church?

Hi, welcome to OSM.
It always concerns me when a new users first contribution to OSM is to delete objects that other mappers have taken the time to add. Please can you explan why you have deleted these tracks and farmyards?
Also it is helpful to other mappers if changeset comments are meaningful, dvr used doesn't tell me anything about your intentions.
Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM.
Please remember that OSM is a live database and anything added will be available to all users immediately. Please only add genuine data, not test data. A wood is never a single node and is clearly wrong in this location so I am reverting this edit.
Please continue to edit, but only add things that exist on the ground.
Cheers Phil

Hi, thank you for your edit however you have added your business in the middle of the road, which is a bit unlikely.
I am removing this but as long as it is verifiable, has visible signage, then please add it back in its correct position.
Cheers Phil

I would just draw the loop, it is private land so there is no formal turning loop.
Cheers Phil