Please do not duplicate existing features, I have reverted this changeset.

Cheers Phil

Hi Hemat, the school is already mapped on the surrounding campus. Adding a node is a duplication, also the school is not called Canterbury.
I have reverted this changeset.

Cheers Phil

Hi Hemat
Welcome to OSM, thank you for your edit.

The houses you have added are already mapped meaning that you have created duplicates. I have reverted this edit.

For a beginner it is far easier to learn using iD for the osm site, josm is quite advanced.

Cheers Phil

Thank you

Hi, please keep your changesets to sensible areas, in this case you have created a bounding box covering a large are which makes it difficult for mappers to spot changes which affect their areas.
Also oneway=no is unnecessary, it should only be used in places like town centres where most roads are oneway.

Cheers Phil

I have updated this to service, with tracktype=2 appropriate access tags for rights of way to the south and access to farms from the North.

Cheers Phil

I am the original mapper of way/188050722 and can confirm that it was mapped correctly in terms of vehicle access.
The point where it changed from unclassified to track was surveyed and was the point I was able to drive to.
Beyond that it is a bridleway as far as far as the mapped bridleway. Just north of that point there is a gate. From there, intp S|tanton to the tertiary road is private for access to premises.
It could be argued that this is a highway=service with tracktype=grade2 with appropriate access tags.
North of BW access=private
South of BW motor_vehicle=private
horse/foot/bicycle=yes

Cheers Phil

Hi, thank you for adding these roads however it is import to consider existing mapping when adding new features.
In this case the area is crossed by a footpath, which based on it proximity to the road you have added should clearly be incorporated in the new residential road. As it stands now there is no connectivity.

Also as this is now a residential area please take just a few seconds of update the residential area to include this new estate.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM. Thank you for your edit however the footpath does need to connect to Vineyard Road in order for routers to be able to use it. Please could you connect it?

Cheers Phil

Hi, thank you for your edit. Just a couple of issues, in OSM the name tag is used for an actual name. We use the prow_ref tag for rights of way references, hence this should be prow_ref=Eccleshall 6. More specialist renderers do show this tag, for example http://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17&lat=52.868644&lon=-2.72152

When mapping rights of way we also add a designation tag, hence this should have designation=public_footpath.

There is also a small issue with the connection to the stile, the stile has 3 ways leading from it so I cannot tell which route involves crossing the stile.

Many of the community are walkers and very much into mapping rights of way, if you have any questions please ask.

Cheers Phil

Hi
This edit looks a bit strange. Many of these areas that you have changed to wetland are in fact beaches. They certainly do not fit the wiki description of a tidalflat, which are places to be avoided, not to walk/sunbath/paddle or swim. The clue is often in the name, for example Traeth Melynog which I visited yesterday where I saw a lovely expanse of sandy beach.

On what did you base your decision to retag these beaches.

Cheers Phil

Please update your sources and imagery used to reflect what you have used on each changeset, listing everything you may use is unhelpful. You have certainly not used any of Bing Streetside;Mapillary Images;Mapillary Signs;OpenStreetCam Images on this changeset.

Cheers Phil

Hi, are these restaurants publicly accessible?

We do not map staff canteens as they are not accessible to the public. As a minimum they should be tagged as access=private.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM.

Please could you explain what you mean by WCBC Original Map. do you have permission to copy from it?

Also the tags you have used are rather confusing, is it access=permissive or foot=yes. Assuming that this is a PROW then access=permissive would be very wrong.

Cheers Phil

Hi, rather than using the description tag for welsh and inscription for English, it would be better to use inscription:en and inscription:cy.

For an example node/6501076666

Cheers Phil

Hi Paarvan
Welcome to OSM, thank you for your edit however the way you have mapped this is incorrect. We only add a separate way if there is a physical separation. Mapping lanes in this way is confusing to map users and in this case for example somebody joining from way/31834029 cannot enter the turn lane, which obviously they can. The correct way to map situations such as this is to use turn:lanes.

If you need any help fixing this please ask.

Cheers Phil

Thank you

Firstly by adding access=private you are making all map users go around the long way, this includes most importantly pedestrians. Remember to consider other uses as OSM is not just a map for motor vehicles, it was founded by walkers and cyclists.
The most likely access tag here is simply motor_vehicle=destination, other users should not be restricted.
Cheers Phil

Hi
Why would you consider paths with in cemetery to be private? Kind of defeats the object.

Cheers Phil

Most houses don't have names, but if they do it will be on a sign. Otherwise the name/housename field should be left unpopularited.
Normally just the addr:housenumber field is populated with just the number.

Cheers Phil