Please stop duplicating information that is already mapped. The university details are already on the campus object. There is no need to duplicate that information on the building.
Also rather than delete the newsagent it is better to change it to disused:shop=newsagent, this stops it rendering but preserves the history when the premises become something else.

Cheers Phil

Hi Mitch
This edit has gone a little wrong.

The leisure centre tags were already mapped on the campus object and in this edit you have duplicated them on the building and in so doing have lost the building object.

Curious what you were trying to achieve?

Cheers Phil

Hi, way/838894289 is just a private service road leading to a parking area for the houses. It is certainly not a residential road.

Cheers Phil

Hi Mike
I realise this was a long time ago, but why did you move the name to description?

It appears to be a valid name based on OS Opendata.

Cheers Phil

Hi, in cases like this you should split the building into two, or provide two nodes. 58-60 should only be used where it is a single point occupying two addresses.

Cheers Phil

Please only use the name tag for actual verifiable names, the name tag should not be make detail appear on the map.

Cheers Phil

Thank you, I had never considered mapping such a thing and spotted a very large changeset area.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Just wondering what the source of all these VAT numbers is?

Cheers Phil

Please do not let your cat walk on the keyboard when you are writing changeset comments :)

Hi, welcome to OSM.

I think this edit has added incorrect information.
1. The shop hasn't been a One Stop for a lot of years, the Post Office is a node within the shop and doesn't have a name. It is perfectly fine for an object not to have a name despite what Streetcomplete thinks.

2. The allotments do not have a name, they are just referred to a The Allotments, but that is a description not a name.

3. The node you added Markfield Surgery to is a duplicate, the correct name is Markfield Medical Centre and that was already mapped. The duplicate is my fault, sorry.

Cheers Phil

Hi Mario
This edit is incorrect. The object here is the AONB, not The Forest of Bowland which this wikidata/wikipedia tags you added refer to.
As far as I am aware the AONB does not have a wikidata item but please do not add incorrect information just because it is a similar name.

This edit should be reverted.

Cheers Phil

They added bicycle=yes which will have improved routing, although it is tagging for the renderer.

Hi sdfzxdgxfhdr
This changeset did noy change the A629 to a trunk road, it has always been mapped that way and does appear to be correct. Green signs?

If your router cannot route along a trunk road then it is not configured correctly, use one that works such as graphhopper or cycle.travel.

Cheers Phil

Did you really use all of these imagery sources, it looks rather odd as Bing streetside is very urbancentric and certainly not available here.
Sources should only include what is actually used.

Cheers Phil

Did you really use all of these imagery sources, it looks rather odd as Bing streetside is very urbancentric and certainly not available here.
Sources should only include what is actually used.

Cheers Phil

Hi, in OSM names are for actual names and should not be for references.

In OSM these should be put into the prow_ref tag. You probably do not need to include PROW in this tag.

You should also add designation tags such as public_footpath/pubic_bridleway when mapping rights of way.

More specialist renders of OSM will display rights of way references.

See https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17&lat=52.866733&lon=-2.72515

Cheers Phil

I have reverted this changeset as Mario did not respond

Bore da, Croeso y OSM.

The wikidata tag on this object was correct.

This is object is the admin boundary for the community, which had the correct tag.

This is not the city of St Davids which the wikidata you changed it to. That was already on the place node.

This changeset needs to be reverted.

Cheers Phil

If this path has a verifiable name (i.e. a sign) then the name should be on the way. You should not add a separate node and the description is not needed, we can see where it goes.
Cheers Phil

Please do not duplicate information, if the tags are on the building then you should not add a node. Also if a building has a housename then there is not need for a name tag containing the same information.

Cheers Phil