I am a bit confused by this one, I have never found a corridor here.

You can cut through shops, but it would be wrong to route pedestrians that way.

Cheers Phil

Thank you.

However I am not basing my views on imagery and that it appears ok. They are based on real world experience and local knowledge which is the gold standard in osm. This section of road is fun :)

Cheers Phil

Simply tagging it as motor_vehicle=discouraged is adequate, it is afterall a public highway and no narrower than many other roads in the area. It is afterall the responsibility of a driver to not blindly follow their satnav.

This road is absolutely fine for cars, and
is one where I wonder about the real reason for the signs.

We should not map for the renderer, or in this case router. They should be able to consume this tag, it is wrong to choose tags based on what routers support.

Cheers Phil

motor_vehicle=discouraged would be a better tag although it is one of those places where you wonder why the sign is there. A hgv would.struggle, but its fine in a car.
Cheers Phil

You seem to have lost the highway tag on 480061272.

The tag service=alley is a very odd way to describe way/120282236 which is correctly described as highway=unclassified is it not?

It is very definitely closed and part of the construction site although the building looks to be being retained.

Where precisely did you source the care home details from?

Cheers Phil

Has way/1034146531 reopened?

It closed several years ago and last time I went by it was boarded up.

Cheers Phil

Ignore it?
I had never even noticed it :)

Just wondering why you have removed the wikidata tag from Northwood?

Please do not add cartpaths to public highways, leisure centres of carparks.

OSM should only reflect what is in the real world.

Rubbish removed.

Hi, this is not a charity shop, why did you change it?

Cheers Phil

Hi, in this changeset you have mapped a path way/982094029 which is causing rather a lot of concern on @talk-gb.

I am wondering what sources you used, have you walked it or were you using some other source?

Cheers Phil

Brownfield is for land that has previously been developed and the development is then cleared.
When, or if, development starts then it will become construction.
However that will need a survey, we cannot copy from planning applications.

You used a source which is a breach of copyright, we absolutely must not copy from other maps

We are not allowed to use the OS Mapping which is included in the planning application site. The copyright statement at the bottom of the map makes that very clear.

We have no complete, opendata, source of addresses at this level in the UK. The only way to gather address data is to go out and survey, which takes time. Some of the addresses you have added are not publicly accessible, the sections of Lowe Hill Road are not residential but at best service roads/shared driveways, with private access.

I have reverted this edit.

Hi
Welcome to OSM, thank you for your edit however please keep your changesets to sensible areas. This one should have been three, one for each area.
Also please use meaningful changeset comments which describe your intentions, uhh just made me immediately question your edits.

OSM is a database which reflects verifiable real world information, a doestic garage with an operator and and an operator:type of quango is certainly questionable.

Sorry, realised that you didn't change the noticeboard.

5. Advertising on the noticeboard by the library is prohibited, amenity=notice_board

Hi, you have made several errors in this changeset.
1. Wem's Kitchen is a takeaway, why would you change it to a restaurant?
2. Monks is a shop, not an office. It has big windows and displays which are useful outside of opening hours,
3: Why have you removed the tunnel from Maypole Court to High Street?
4. Wishing Well is two separate buildings, deliberately mapped that way as part of a plan for 3d mapping.
The office and training room should be separate buildings and objects.

Cheers Phil