No response so I've reinstated the deleted buildings.

Hi, Seems like a question in your changeset comment. The blue P indicates a parking area only, it doesn't indicate that the area is public parking unless accompanied by access=yes. Please see amenity=parking for further info.
Your tag access=private indicates that use of the car park is private only.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I've amended the footpath tagging to suit OSM practice and tweaked the line a bit. Removed the width=0 tag as that was illogical (a path with no width can't really be a path).

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Way: 877762790 ends very close to Way: 674716138 (the service road), are they supposed to be joined?

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

All three of these POI are a bit naughty, there's a huge fine for trespassing on the railway lines. Therefore I've reverted the changeset thus removing the POI.

You've got the ability to contribute genuine features to OSM. Need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi Sid,
There is no individual POI node as all info is now contained on the building polygon/outline. The name and the teapot symbol do appear as at this zoom level changeset/95028163#map=18/51.58457/-0.27995

Zoom levels are not all rendered at the same time sometimes there are delays. Of course other maps will depend on when the data is updated. Clearing your browser cache might help.

Regards Bernard

I've been through these changes and fixed the problems I can see.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've amended and added to your data. Also removed the building (POI) inside building so as to meet OSM practice.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I would agree that access=no is incorrect for these roads as there obviously is some access. Tag access=private would be more appropriate.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I would agree that access=no is incorrect for these roads. Tag access=private is usual on areas such as this (MoD property), if there is access unrequested by visitors, delivery or the postman then access=permissive would be appropriate.

Regards Bernard.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've made a few changes to your edits in order to conform to OSM practice.

Regards Bernard.

No response so I've removed it

Hi, the building is divided up and your unit inserted.

Regards Bernard

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Youve actually drawn a new building inside of an existing building. The existing building should be sectioned into units and your info tagged on the appropiate unit. Can you tell me how many units are in the building please? Also which unit is number 6? I'll then divide the building into sepaate units.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, there's usually no need to add negative tagging as in absence the negative is implied. In the absence of a cycleway tag it is implied there is no cycleway left, right, or both. Your tag cycleway:left=no, if taken literally, would suggest there might be a cycleway at right. If all negative attributes were added the database would be huge.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, that was a bus stop you moved, nothing to do with the church building. I reverted the position. However, I think its a redundant marker.
Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I see you have deleted lots of buildings here. If this has been done based on your on the ground survey or first-hand knowledge then please ignore the following comments.

I think you may have based the deletions on the Bing imagery on the iD editor. Please be aware that the Bing imagery is usually quite out of date because it's very rarely updated. The Maxar imagery however is refreshed quite frequently with ongoing updates. If you had used the Maxar imagery you would have seen that all the buildings you deleted are actually there. To view the Maxar imagery in the iD editor click background settings right of screen (shortcut B), then select the Maxar imagery layer.

If you would agree that the buildings ought not have been deleted would you like me to try and reinstate them without removing your additions?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, the name was on the school grounds outline with the other data as per OSM practice. I removed the name from the building.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've tweaked the buildings and added passages to suit OSM practice.

Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

We try to map ground truth on OSM and the car park can be clearly seen and had been mapped for nearly ten years. Please don't delete genuine verifiable features. Please rather amend or correct to better reflect ground truth. If the car park is private then it could be tagged access=private or access=permissive as the case maybe.

I've reverted your change to reinstate the car park. If you need help taggin please just ask.

Regards Bernard.