Hello,

I see you are still adding a lot of un-described areas to the map that match buildings on the aerial imagery. They should be tagged at least as building=yes, the area=yes tag should be removed. Otherwise they are not rendered so of no benifit to OSM or anyone using the database.

The buildings can also be tidied up by zooming right in, you can then correct the outlines, you can also orthogonalize (square up) buildings to make your mapping more professional looking.

If you need any help just ask. Regards Bernard.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunately the website you added for the school does not connect, it links to Finalsite UK, a web designer site. Could you please amend or remove it?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Indeed it was thanks ndrw6 for letting me know.

I've reverted that changset so it's now OK. I now know how it happened, I highlighted two houses to square them up and inadvertently must have had the residential area selected as well. While zoomed into the houses to orthogonalise them I missed the change to the big area.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, I have reverted this changeset in order to reinstate the moved bus stop and remove your pokemon fiction.

Please don't corrupt our worldwide database with pokemon fiction.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I wonder, has the stream through the woods actually been removed?

Regards Bernard

Hi, I removed the moat from the relation as it is not part of the lake multipolygon relation.

Hi, I've reverted the name and added your new data as a description as the description is not part of the formal name.

Regards Bernard

Hi, I've removed the cycle shop as it is a duplication of the existing POI. Also amended several tags for addresses and opening hours. Added your new data to the existing POI.

Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The feature has been tagged as a mini roundabout since 2008, and still is. If you see this feature as something else (or not at all) there is likely a problem with how the feature is rendered on the software you are using. Thus the problem should be referred to your map provider.

I have removed the node you added as it serves no purpose. Notes to draw contributors attention to a problem (see the red pointers) can be added here:- osm.org/#map=13/52.6415/1.3755&layers=N

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've amended your description tags to suit OSM practice.

Regards Bernard.

Hello Karl,

The POI/node you are changing is for the hamlet of Broomholm, not the priory.

I've changed that to just Broomholm. I've now also added a relation and tagged the three main remains of Broomholm Priory as well.

Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've reinstated the recreation ground tag as this is what the area named, please see the website I've added. The park tag is OK if you think the area is locally recognized as such. Your new path was not connected to the highway network so joined it up to Maygreen Crescent, thus it can now be routed.
I made other amendments to the area.

Regards Bernard

(Sorry posted to early)
The remains of a Cluniac priory known as Broomholm Priory (and sometimes known/spelt as Broomholme Priory or Holy Rood of Bromholme) is nearby, close to the hamlet POI, but is not as yet mapped.

Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I think you have mistakenly amended this name. It is a place, a hamlet, namely Broomholm (no e).

Saint Andrews Priory is a feature named Broomholme, it is not currently mapped.

Hi, sorry to say your fix made two more self-intersections. I reverted your change and fixed the original self-intersection by removing the offending section and adding another inner to the multipolygon.

Regards Bernard

Hi, there's been no response so I've reverted this changeset to remove the duplicated building.

The travel agency is an online shop only, there's no physical presence at any location you've added. They should all be removed from OSM.

Even the website does not give an address that could be mapped as a head office.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You've made a good job of adding the cycleway but I just wanted to point out a few things regarding this.

In the middle the cycleway crosses over a footway leading to Olive Road, the two ways should be joined here with a node.

If this is a formal signed shared use (foot and cycle), cycleway, then a better set of tags would be :- bicycle=designated
foot=designated
highway=path
segregated=no
and because the highway=path then there's no need for the tag access=no.
I doubt if the cycleway is formally named Princes Road.

At the west end approaching Heath Lane surely the cyclyway does not end, I would have thought it carrys on over Heath Road. Thus the existing footway ought be made a cycleway. Perhaps even the crossing over Princes Road here should be a cycleway.

Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your changes removed a street name as mentioned. Also online agency's with no on the ground presence should be removed from OSM.

Would you like me to revert your two change-sets?

Hello there, I've looked at reverting the changeset and there will be 4 conflicts to resolve. It might be difficult to resolve these conflicts in the iDeditor so I've reverted this changeset with the JOSM editor. The 4 conflicts turned out to be the 4 buildings 667231457, v2
667231455, v2
667231458, v2
667231456, v2
added in Changeset: 66774235
As these if left would be on top of the reinstated building I allowed the conflicts to be resolved by deleting those 4 buildings.

I hope what I've done is OK with you.
Regards Bernard.