I am concerned that you are adding a large number of postcodes on residential properties. If there was an open usable source they would have been added a long time ago so wondering what source you are using?

Cheers Phil

How exactly is deleting other mappers work improving the map. Hedges are important features.

Cheers Phil

I have also spotted that your changes have misaligned this area.
Wem has been very carefully mapped and aligned over the last 10 years, and has been a testbed for new ideas. It has been very carefully aligned, you must never assume that arial imagery is correctly aligned, it rarely is.
We have land registry cadastral parcels available under imagery which should be used to align imagery before use. You do need to keep doing this, the calibration is often only valid for 100m or so.

Also please avoid deleting and redrawing objects as it destroys history and is disrespectful to the work of other mappers.

Cheers Phil

Following on from the last part

You should not blindly believe what iD suggests, it is not authoritative. OSM tagging is built through consensus and usage. As you can see from this edit it has got the co-op badly wrong.

Cheers Phil

This edit has gone rather wrong. You have changed Wem Co-op from Mid Counties to the Co-operative group which is clearly an error. The tags had been carefully selected. Why did you change this?

You have also deleted the service area on Aston Road Business Park, again why. The tagging was correct.

1004645243 is not farmland, it is a network rail storage area which was tagged as landuse=railway which again was correct.

1004645242 is just empty wasteland, possibly scrub. It is again not farmland.

Cheers Phil

You should not blindly believe

Hi, what source are you using for postcodes?

We do not have a practical open source that can be simply linked to addresses?

Cheers Phil

Thank you for your edit, the name did need updating, I had missed that one.

However I am wondering why you changed the informative building=retail to a very generic building=yes? That is throwing away surveyed data. Yes is an indication that either the mapper didn't know and an indication that a survey is needed.

Also Premier is a franchise, they are not the operators, this is an independent shop.

Cheers Phil

What oneway system?

Why have you moved the location of the Wem node?

The position is chosen so that if someone requests they satnav to take them to Wem, they end up in a sensible place (such as the High Street). The middle of the school field is not sensible.

Cheers Phil

Thank you for spotting this. They are land registry cadestral parcels which I was using and intended to remove. Missed these but gone now.

Cheers Phil

This edit has gone a bit wrong.

way/204021859 is certainly not a building, it was correctly tagged as a yard, and the name was and still is on the relation. It is certainly not Furrows.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit seems a bit strange. What issues were you trying to fix?

You have removed the detailed building=roof and replaced it with building=yes, which you only use if you don't know,

You have removed the highway=service and area tags from the forecourt and transferred the amenity=fuel tag to it, but have left behind important associated tags about fuels sold (and not sold) on the building.

Cheers Phil

Hi, track describes this better than a footway. Also as this is a restricted byway then it is a bit wider than a footpath. I would have left this as a track, however it could be describes a bridleway.

Cheers Phil

Brickhall Lane that is

Hi, I am not convinced that the weight limit applies only too the bridge. It also applies to the road.
Although a bit of an oddity as it only applies in one direction or more likely the TRO has only be implemented by Shropshire.

Cheers Phil

I am aligning to Land Registry Cadestra parcels, which is about the best we have.

I missed that one and will remove it, it is from Land Registry opendata.

I have updated way/30408422 to reflect legal access, changed motor_vehicle to discouraged and added weight and smoothness tags.

Hi Bernard, it is still a work in progress.

I am planning to do more and either use and tag of remove them.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your edits however please use meaningful changeset comments that explain to other mappers what you are changing and why.

Cheers Phil