Hi, This looks like a park area rather than a school. Is it a new school?

Regards.

Removed multipolygon, this is a single regular polygon. Squared up building.

Hi, Thanks for the amemdment, I've squared it up for you. Looks good now.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Way: 945781340 is the inner polygon of a multipolygon. The fact that it is an area is thus implied so area=yes is not needed.

Regards Bernard.

The new building looks out of shape, could you check if the outline is correct please?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, in iD editor you have to click 'ignore this issue' it's OK. The website says the capacity tag is optional therefore not required.

Regards Bernard

Hi, amenity=parking_space is singular, and therefore capacity is implied as singular (1). You've also mapped amenity=parking to which a capacity could be added though it's not necessary, nor incorrect to omit. Indeed for a lot of car parks the individual spaces are not marked out, therefore capacity depends on how the vehicles are parked or their size.

Out of interest what or where tells you there are issues?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've amended the address and website tags to OSM practice.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You actually drew the larger house twice, one atop the other. I've removed the duplicate, divided the house into two houses then squared the three up.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've amended the names to designation tags as per OSM practice.

Regards Bernard.

Hello Chris, Thanks for responding, that's easy then I've just removed the designation=permissive_bridleway tag.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

A POI on the side of a road with only name and description tags is not really helpful. Please remember that features in the OSM database must be verifiable. So is your company physically based near here? Could the premises be drawn and a complete address be added, maybe include a website?

If you need help please just ask. Regards Bernard.

Hi, It's OSM good practice that when a feature needs correcting/amending that the correction is made to the existing feature, (not delete and redraw). Thus all the history of the object is retained and maintained.

I've reverted the change and tweaked the pond outline. You can now see the history from the original mapping in 2014.

Regards Bernard.

PS Could you please correct the problems reported in your previous changeset:- changeset/104825515

No response so I've amended the lines to buildings.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You seem to have the bridleway Way: 944366715 designated as permissive but all access as private. Logically if the designation is permissive then the access must be permissive. The way can be tagged access=private with foot, horse, cycle as permissive as the case may be.

Regards Bernard.

Hi I've changed some name tags to description tags as they are descriptions not formal names.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I see you've got several warnings on this changeset, several for highway crossing a highway without a join. Could you please look to rectifying these problems?

I've fixed a house that you inadvertently dragged out of shape.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The features you've mapped look very much like buildings with yes brick walls. But in OSM they would be tagged as a building, the fact that they have walls is implied, (but you could tag the walls as a description of the building. This applies to all the walls you've mapped around here.

Of course, I may be wrong, have the buildings all been removed leaving walls only? Could you please have a look and make any corrections. If you need help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You've got several footpaths crossing streams with no bridge or ford.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, are you talking about the coastal path or the other tracks.

All land is in ownership and therefore all land could be said to be private.

The coastal path is all legally defined as a public footpath. But it is on private land. By law, it is the surface of the (private) land over which the highway passes which is vested to the Highway Authority.

The status of the other tracks may well be such that you are not allowed access but that does not exclude them from being mapped. They are highways and must have some form of access be it private, agricultural or permissive in some form.

Regards Bernard.