Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

It looks like there are a few things wrong here. The building you have added the tags to is a pair of houses. It's unlikely that the company would be situated in a domestic building and highly unlikely to be in two houses. Looking at the website associated with the company name it says the contact is at 4 Anxey Way, Haddenham.

Can you please respond regarding the above observations? If your addition to OSM cannot cannot be verified then they ought be removed/corrected.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I see you've tagged/addressed the whole building as one house. I wonder though if this is actually a residential building of more than one house? I can help with corrections if you wish.

Regards Benard.

Reverted in order to return dragged AED to it's original position.

Regards Bernard,

Hi, Please excuse me for pointing out that proper names should have the first letter of all words capitalised.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Your new highway Way: 1341801325 is a duplication of an existing highway, Thus I've removed it but placed your new relevant tags on the existing way.

If a feature needs amending please do the amendment to the existing feature not merely make a duplication nor remove and redraw. In this way OSM cam hold/maintain all history of features.

Farming access path is a description not a name.

Regards Bernard.

Corrections

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I think you got the tags mixed up with another company. I think I've properly corrected it.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please be aware that the imagery you used here is probably way out of date. The buildings you deleted were added recently, 18/10/2024, so it's very likey that they do exist. Thus I've reinstated them. Please don't delete anything unless you are personally sure of your facts.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, the tag you've used on all these highway nodes "lane_markings=1" does not make sense. Please see:- osm.wiki/Item:Q19804 where it states this tag is not applicable, it does not apply to nodes.

Also, you have tagged the highways as "lane_markings=1." It is not usual for these minor highways to have lane markings, and I can see no evidence of markings from aerial imagery. In OSM the lane_markings tag specifies if a highway has painted markings to indicate the position of the lanes. If there are no painted lines, the tag would be "lane_markings=no".

Could you please correct all the lane marking tags?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, All corrected now.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've got 3 buildings numbered 189 High Street This is surely wrong, could you please remedy this?

There are also many warnings given above some of them serious that ought be corrected. The 221 warnings of close_nodes:vertices are where you have placed 3 or 4 nodes to indicate a corner of a building. These would usually only have 1 node, and then the building can be squared up properly. I think the heaths adjoining the buildings in a retail area are pure fiction and ought be removed or corrected. Perhaps you could reflect on my observations?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Something went wrong with several features in this area. Seems to be from a few of your changesets, could you have a look/repair please?

Regards Bernard.

Footpath tags tweaked to show correct designations.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've amended the footpath tags to suit OSM practice, details from the SCC website and maps.

Regards Bernard.

Tags fixed.

Hi DaveF,

Just to let you know there's a self-intersection on Way: 361072443 at the east end.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your new residential area covers an existing residential area, somewhat, Thus I've removed it. If the existing area is Glenvale Estate then please tag the name there.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

One section of the path was duplicated which I've removed.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, That website and the contacts seem to be fiction. Investigation of the website contents lead to disturbing facts. I've amended the OSM database.

Regards Bernard.

Hi Jerry, I'll bear that in mind. There was a problem flagged on OSM inspector this morning which on correction highlighted to me a few more problems, that was the reason for these changes. Feel free to revert if it will help you.

Regards Bernard