Thanks again for your useful mapping and help: I passed here earlier today and added more detail in changeset/158015296

Thank you, that's really helpful. I walk past here regularly so I'll look carefully next time I'm here and see if I can find a way to tag the feature more descriptively.

I like how different mappers focus on different things, and so notice different details to map. There's always lots new to learn!

Thank you for helping to improve the map.

I notice you tagged this node as "highway=crossing", but I have never noticed any formal crossing here. People can cross the road here just as easily at other points. Do you remember why you tagged this specific point as a crossing?

It is possible, but I walked here recently and the path was flat. We need to map things that exist in the real world, and I see no evidence that the embankment you have mapped intersecting this path exists on the ground.

Thank you for all your helpful work on the map.

The name "Byway Open To All Traffic" looks like a description not a name: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

I suspect these tracks would be tagged better without a name using designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic instead.

What do you think?

Thank you for improving the map - I have deleted the bar you modified as it seems very likely a mistake. Please let me know if I made a mistake and I'll add it back: node/4584150566/history

The name "School Grounds" on way/101356687 looks like a description rather than a name: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

I have amended this in changeset/154903189 - I hope I used suitable tags.

Thank you for adding things to OpenStreetMap. Your changeset comment suggests this is a pillbox, in which case bunker_type=pillbox might be more suitable than tagging this as a castle fortress. What do you think?

Thank you for all your useful work on OpenStreetMap.

It would be helpful to state whether these toilets are inside Tesco or Marks & Spencer, perhaps using the operator= tag. Currently it's unclear.

Thank you for your quick, helpful reply. I have deleted the name in changeset/148241513.

Also, thank you again for improving the map: it's always good to see mistakes fixed.

Thank you for helping to improve OpenStreetMap. We use "name" for the name of a street, not it's description. I suspect the road at way/281100859 doesn't have the name "Unadopted Road", so it shouldn't have a "name", but I want to check with you as you likely have better local knowledge.

Is it possible for pedestrians or other non-vehicle traffic to reach Roughtown Court along this road?

Thank you for your helpful work mapping the Derwent Aqueduct.

The name "Syphon Outlet" in way/203987332 looks like a description not a name: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Thank you for improving the map. I notice you have added a lot of postcodes in this edit. What are you using as your source for these?

Unfortunately, UK postcodes are not open data, as described at osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom#Other_schemas_and_standards and we need to avoid adding copyrighted information to the map.

Thank you for all your good work on OpenStreetMap.

This change adds a name of "Central Retail Park (demolished)" to way/262183470 but I doubt "demolished" is or was part of its name: it's a description of its status.

The principles of "Name is the name only" described at osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only and the Lifecycle prefix described at osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix describe why "demolished" doesn't belong in the name in more detail.

Thank you for your improvements to OpenStreetMap. This change adds a cape, but another node with the same wikidata tag at node/6572722269 - it seems wrong to have two of them but I'm unsure which is correct.

Thank you for your improvements to OpenStreetMap. This change adds the name "Mull of Kintyre" to node/9798021785 but there's already a "Mull of Kintyre" with the same wikidata tag at node/6572722269 - it seems wrong to have two of them but I'm unsure which is correct.

Thank you for confirming. I've updated its tags in changeset/142966491 and moved it closer to the road outside the boundaries of the heath.

The "highway=rest_area" seems wrong to me. Aerial photography looks like more of an "amenity=parking", "parking=layby" where you wouldn't expect to find toilets. Does this seem reasonable?

I've fixed these and others nearby in changeset/142106296