Hi, this is a very strange edit. Just wondering why you have replaced the valid tag of amenity=arts_centre with a rather pointless amenity=yes?

Also please use meaningful changeset comments which describe what you were trying to achieve.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit seems to have gone rather wrong. Please can you explain what 'fix tag on amenity' means.

You seem to have changed a perfectly correct building=yes to amenity=yes, which is rather meaningless.

Cheers Phil

Hi, you seem to have lost the healthcare=doctor and replaced it with healthcare=yes. Please be careful not to loose important information.

Cheers Phil

The purpose of QA tools is to improve the map, not to simply make QA warnings go away.

Here you have simply deleted the tag amenity=yes, despite the name giving very obvious information as to what it is, and how it should be tagged.

If you do not understand what you are mapping the warning is best left alone as it will help another mapper find and fix the problem.

Cheers Phil

Hi
This edit has gone very wrong in a few places.
way/234913886 and way/234913872 are both tagged as disused so adding public_transport tags to them really doesn't make sense. The former is a disused goods platform, which makes public_transport tags doubly wrong.

You have also lost important surveyed tags on way/69262248, amenity=social_club is a valid documented tag, see amenity=social_club

It is important when making this type of mechanical edit that you review the suggested changes to ensure they a sensible and are not loosing surveyed information.

Cheers Phil

Hi
maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_restricted is not very helpful. There is not really a maxspeed:type of GB:nsl_restricted. In built up areas the speed limit may be 30 mph, it may be 20 mph and the needs to be put into the maxspeed tag.

Cheers Phil

Fiction reverted

Fiction reverted

Fiction reverted

Fiction reverted

Reverted and tagged as private

Hi, welcome to OSM.

Just because there is no access to a path it does not mean it should simply be deleted. It exists on the ground, you say so in your comment, so it has a place in OSM.

If there is no public access then it should be tagged a access=private.

Leaving it on the map is helpful to those walking to school who do not want to be directed round to the main entrance.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has gone very very wrong.

There was nothing wrong with the boundary type of this relation yet you have changed it to boundary=boundary then to boundary=administrative in changeset/98997377.

This the ceremonial boundary of Shropshire, it has no administrative function.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_counties_of_England

This edit is damaging to OSM data, I am therefore reverting your changes to this boundary.

If you need help understanding what the various versions of Shropshire are then please ask. I live here.

Cheers Phil

Thank you Alan
That makes sense. The track needs to be split as the northern part is far better quality than the southern part and tags need to reflect this to encourage deliveries to approach from the north.

I have tidied it up in changeset/98991552

Cheers Phil

Diolch, however name:en="Fairy Glen" is still missing.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM.

In OSM we use a highway type which reflects the physical nature and looking at imagery I can see it was correctly mapped as a track.

By changing it to a footway you are preventing vehicles reaching the farm, which clearly is incorrect.

From historic imagery it appears to be a white road, so was correctly mapped.

You may want to clarify access which you have already done but it should be put back to a track. Footway implies foot only to routers.

Cheers Phil

HI, am wondering why you have removed the perfectly correct wikidata tag from this relation?

Cheers Phil

Bore da
Whilst adding Welsh names is important please do not lose valid English names, or hide them away in a note. They should be moved to name:en. It is also good practice to add a name:cy tag for Welsh names.

For example
name=Ffos Anoddun
name:cy=Ffos Anoddun
name:en=Fairy Glen

Diolch Phil

If you have usable evidence that these are bridleways then they should also be tagged as designation=public_bridleway, bicycle=yes and horse=yes.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has gone a little wrong.

THis is two separate properties with separate driveways. You cannot drive from one to the other.

Also please check and update your imagery used for every changeset, you cannot have used Bing Streetside or Openstreetcam at this location.

Cheers Phil