This edit has gone rather wrong. You have changed Wem Co-op from Mid Counties to the Co-operative group which is clearly an error. The tags had been carefully selected. Why did you change this?

You have also deleted the service area on Aston Road Business Park, again why. The tagging was correct.

1004645243 is not farmland, it is a network rail storage area which was tagged as landuse=railway which again was correct.

1004645242 is just empty wasteland, possibly scrub. It is again not farmland.

Cheers Phil

You should not blindly believe

Hi, what source are you using for postcodes?

We do not have a practical open source that can be simply linked to addresses?

Cheers Phil

Thank you for your edit, the name did need updating, I had missed that one.

However I am wondering why you changed the informative building=retail to a very generic building=yes? That is throwing away surveyed data. Yes is an indication that either the mapper didn't know and an indication that a survey is needed.

Also Premier is a franchise, they are not the operators, this is an independent shop.

Cheers Phil

What oneway system?

Why have you moved the location of the Wem node?

The position is chosen so that if someone requests they satnav to take them to Wem, they end up in a sensible place (such as the High Street). The middle of the school field is not sensible.

Cheers Phil

Thank you for spotting this. They are land registry cadestral parcels which I was using and intended to remove. Missed these but gone now.

Cheers Phil

This edit has gone a bit wrong.

way/204021859 is certainly not a building, it was correctly tagged as a yard, and the name was and still is on the relation. It is certainly not Furrows.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit seems a bit strange. What issues were you trying to fix?

You have removed the detailed building=roof and replaced it with building=yes, which you only use if you don't know,

You have removed the highway=service and area tags from the forecourt and transferred the amenity=fuel tag to it, but have left behind important associated tags about fuels sold (and not sold) on the building.

Cheers Phil

Hi, track describes this better than a footway. Also as this is a restricted byway then it is a bit wider than a footpath. I would have left this as a track, however it could be describes a bridleway.

Cheers Phil

Brickhall Lane that is

Hi, I am not convinced that the weight limit applies only too the bridge. It also applies to the road.
Although a bit of an oddity as it only applies in one direction or more likely the TRO has only be implemented by Shropshire.

Cheers Phil

I am aligning to Land Registry Cadestra parcels, which is about the best we have.

I missed that one and will remove it, it is from Land Registry opendata.

I have updated way/30408422 to reflect legal access, changed motor_vehicle to discouraged and added weight and smoothness tags.

Hi Bernard, it is still a work in progress.

I am planning to do more and either use and tag of remove them.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your edits however please use meaningful changeset comments that explain to other mappers what you are changing and why.

Cheers Phil

> I believe it just has a really worn surface that gives rise to those signs.
That is correct, and had me puzzled when you mentioned bin lorries. The poor surface only really affects small wheeled vehicles, in a car you have to take it carefully.

There is a farm on that road and bin lorries do go that way without a problem. I happened to see someone in the pub who has driven them that way and he said 'no problem, there is plenty of space and referred to the fact they have to collect rubbish from the farm.

Also in this changeset, way/419745389/history should not be tagged as hgv=no. Signage prior to the turn https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=547111949711585 indicates that the bridge has a maxweight of 10 tons, which will exclude most hgvs but not all. This should be tagged as maxweight=10.
Geograph is also a useful source of usable images in the GB.
For example https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/551936

Cheers Phil

Hi
Again I am wondering what the source of these edits is.

I am puzzled what you were trying to achieve by setting way/30408422 to motor_vehicle=no?
Whilst there are blue 'unsuitable for motor vehicles' signs they are legally allowed to use it and need to for access to fields and premises.

Cheers Phil

Thank you for your comments however we can't use Google Street View or other Google products as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here.

I am going to have to revert these edits.

Which other edits have you used Google Streetview for as these will need to be reverted also.

Please continue mapping but only use allowed sources, we can for example use mapillary for street level images.

Out of curiosity, as your edits suggest you are in Kent, did you visit Shropshire or what was the driver to make these edits?

Cheers Phil

I think the name slipped a bit, have fixed it.

Cheers Phil