Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

If the name pertains to the whole building then it should be tagged on the building outline.

Need any help please just ask.
Regards Bernard

Hi, the path as far as I'm aware does not have a formal name, the definitive map reference (Garvestone FP 7) is used to indicate this particular RoW. I have removed the tag name=Public footpath.
It is usually taken that horses and cycles are not allowed to be ridden on publicly designated footpaths so the restrictive tags are not needed. To the best of my knowledge dismounted cycles can be pushed along a public footpath, I don't know about led horses.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, again access=private is better than access=no and foot=private. I've removed the name tag.

Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Sorry to say that access=no is not recognized by OSM as a restriction, nor are fictitious names. There is or was a path here, I've passed by and noticed it numerous times. It would be better to tag the way access=private, then the other traffic restrictions (bicycle=no
foot=no) are not needed. Any allowed traffic can then positively overcome the blanket access=no.

I have removed the name tag. If you need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

OK, no response so I've made corrections.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The park tag is really for an area feature, in this case the park outline is tagged so no need for your tag which I've removed.

I've added the park name and website.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I don't know exactly what happened but there was still a duplicate building. I have placed your new data on the original building and removed the duplication. All now looks OK.

Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The area you removed in this changeset was tagged as :- access=private
landuse=construction
note=part of park closed, no indication of timescale

Are you sure the area has now been as a park again? It seems strange for the local authority to act in this manner. Though on reflection in this world today anything is possible!

Regards Bernard.

Hi and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Very well done. I've made a few minor amendments to the overall outline, service roads and the waterways.

Regards Bernard.

Hi,
I see your new path way/661524629, v1 is not joined to the other paths at either end, it seems a bit odd to have a path which one cannot access from an adjoining highway.

Regards Bernard.

I now see that way/661506944, v1 fails to join Cowpen Road. If there is a barrier between the road and path it could be mapped to avoid confusion.

Regards Bernard.

Hi,

Sorry to say that your new path (way/661506943, v1), is not connected to the highway network, there is a gap where it almost meets Windmill Grove.

Regards Bernard.

Hi,

Can the formal name "Tree" be verified at all of these trees by anyone that visits? If not then the names should all be removed.
Please see :- osm.wiki/Verifiability which states :- "From a given scenario, a tag/value combination is verifiable if and only if independent users when observing the same feature would make the same observation every time."

Unless of course you have other information such as a formal authoritative, perhaps by a local council, list of the individual names. In which case I would ask if this list is freely available for use in OSM.

Regards Bernard.

Are they really all individually named "Row Of Trees". I've commented before on the way to map tree rows.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, is the general public allowed in the gardens because lacking any restriction thats how it is presented. The area actually looks like back gardens made into a residents informal recreation area. I question whether the area is formally named "Windmill Gardens" and if all the features in the area are formally named?

Regards Bernard.

Hi,

I've amended quite a few things at the recreation ground, including duplicated paths, self intersecting path lines and path names. However I'm not able to correct the tree rows that you've mapped as single nodes. A tree row is a linear feature tagged natural=tree_row, a single tree is mapped as a single node tagged natural=tree. Please see natural=tree_row
Also I don't think lots of trees would be formally named as "Row Of Trees" so these names should be removed when you resolve the tree row mapping.

If you need help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I see you have added a lot of untagged areas to the map that match buildings on the aerial imagery. They should be tagged at least as building=yes. The areas could be tidied up by zooming right in to 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.

Hi, Whitnash is mentioned in many ways as a town, it even has a town council https://www.whitnashtowncouncil.gov.uk/

Wiki says "Whitnash is a small residential town and civil parish located south-east of, and contiguous with Leamington Spa and Warwick"

So I've reverted the change.
Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Regarding your new footpath addition, way/660809077, I see it crosses a drain. Is there a bridge here? It then crosses and recrosses another footpath, at the second crossing there is no joining node.

If you need any help just ask. Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You haven't changed or added anything. You actually deleted a cycle shop, was this your intention?

Just ask if you need help.
Regards Bernard.