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 Please be aware that the Bing imagery is usually quite out of date because it's very rarely updated.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.

Hi, I'm sorry but it's not rendered properly on osminedit. It renders with the steps greyed out on levels 0,1 and 2. It needs to be mapped with all 3 levels of steps drawn and then each line of steps joining to one path level, rising up to join the above path level at the other end. The differing path levels must not be joined but be a separate way directly on top of (or under) the other ways. The map is rendered from birds eye view. As it is now if you can imagine tilting the building all the ways will be joined together. It should be drawn such that when imagining a tilted building, the paths are all separate with the steps going from one level of path to another level of path.

I hope that makes sense. Regards Bernard.

Hi. It looks like you've got both lines of steps joined at each end to paths at level 0, 1 and two. Can you really go up one flight of steps onto paths on 3 separate levels? Doesn't seem logical.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your contribution to OSM
Most of the info you added was alreaddy tagged on the school amenity overall outline as per OSM practice. I've added your new info to the amenity outline. Thus the info on the building outline is duplication so I've removed it.

Regards & Happy Mapping Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
You actually drew another building atop of the existing long building making a duplication. Going on your changeset comment I've divided the long building into six and inserted your new building at the end.
Hope thats OK Regards Bernard.

Hi, For me it will always be Boadicea, that's what I was taught at school. That was a long time ago though and it seems historians have now changed their minds but still don't agree on the actual spelling. The Lost Byway website calls it Boudicca’s Obelisk so I'd agree with that name.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, The reservoir is already mapped and tagged in the polygon Way: 461536475

Your POI name would actually be a description anyway. I placed the operator and tag on the polygon then removed the POI as it's duplication of data.

Regards Bernard.

Hi. Are you sure you've now spelt it correctly, whatever your preference I think there should be a 'u' in there.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, you're quite right and I've no idea how I managed that. Amenity and date tags are removed from both paths.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

So is this actually a recycling container? If not then it ought be removed.

Regards Bernard.