Hi sbelemey, Thanks for responding.

I've reverted your change and also gone over the whole of that line marking the sections that seem, I think, to be paths. then removing the sections that are not relevant to any highways.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, are you sure all addresses on this road are the same postcode and that the whole road is contained within that postcode centroid?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The tag addr:city=??? should contain the postal city name, as per Royal Mail, not the village name.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I'm sorry to say that your edit inadvertently went a bit awry. Dragging the river line out of place, replacing a gate with a bridge support, and placing another bridge support downstream a bit. Thus I've reverted the situation to as it was.

If you could say what you are trying to achieve maybe I can help or advise.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

OSM likes to be precise as possible. So I've moved your node from being attached to the highway to approximately the position of the premises, (as near as I can tell). I also removed the untagged highway and mapped the service road.

I can't find out the shop address or a current website so can't add any more detail. If you can give more info, address and position I could further improve the OSM data.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've reverted all your changes as they are all fiction. You deleted and or moved existing features and added fiction features to aid game playing.

OSM is a live worldwide database, please don't spoil it for yourself and everyone else.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Is it OK now, if not please say what's wrong I'll try to help?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've recently added several footpaths placing them on top of existing highways. This makes duplication and disruption of routing. When/if a way needs amending/correcting please do it to the existing way, as per OSM best practice. This is to maintain the history of the way and avoid the above-mentioned problems.

I've made the amendments to correct the problems.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've placed half of Way: 1023584223 on top of existing highway. This is duplication and disruption of routing. When/if a way needs amending/correcting pleas e do it to the existing way as per OSM best practice to maintain the history of the way.

I've made the amendments to correct the above problems.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The tag oneway=no is implied in the absence of any oneway tag, so no need for oneway=no.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, You somehow placed the gate on the main highway thus disrupting routing. So I've moved the gate onto the service road where I think you meant it to be. Please be careful not to interfere with routing when you amend the database as thousands of map compilers depend on correct data.

No problem now, Regards Bernard.

Hi, No response so I've removed the duplicate ways.

No response so I've removed the duplicate.

Hello, Your tagging of Way: 565066897 as highway=path is mostly incorrect.

This line was added untagged 4 years ago by a mapper that uploaded one changeset. As far as I can see they were trying to map a personal walking route "Walking route Bryn SM to Corwen". There are many mistakes in the way the route is mapped. The way crosses over many other highways without joining. It is also in places is mapped on top of existing highways. The warnings above show that making this a highway results in 13 crossing highways and 2 crossing highway waterways. Thus I've removed the highway=path tag.

There are some sections of this 16km way that are footpaths. So what's needed is for someone to look at the whole of the way and make amendments to suit what's on the ground. Could you do this please or should I have a go?

Please don't add or change tags without first having a proper assessment of what will happen or might change.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Could you please say what local knowledge you have to justify the status of access of this highway as bicycle=yes and horse=yes? The reason I ask is that the legal status of this highway (from the borough website) is of Public Footpath. Which would normally mean horse riding and cycling are not statutorily allowed, though there could be private or permissive access.

I've added the tags designation=public_footpath, foot=designated and prow_ref=Bisham FP 20

Regards Bernard.

Hi, OK changed the tag to amenity=restaurant;bar so a name search can be combined with either restaurant or bar.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

If the features are not open and verifiable then they should not be tagged as such. You could use construction or proposed tags to better describe the features.

Need any help please just ask, Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

These issues have been sorted with new OSM @contributor tipsyteapot.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've almost fixed it. I've just now transferred all the POI data to the building outline. I've amended the opening hours, (midnight is 24:00 rather than 00:00). I've also resolved the two notes that maybe you placed asking for the Teapot to be added to OSM.

One thing I'm not clear about, is there actually a brewery onsite? If not that tag ought be removed. If so is it the same business?

Regards Bernard.

By the way, I've corrected the postcode. Please look at the opening times, their not presented as per OSM practice, please see:- opening_hours=*

The hours posted on OSM don't match those on the website.