Hello Alwyn from Wem, where the sweet peas grow.

My main comment is that you have spelt the name of my hometown wrong, it is Wem, not Wen. That is in the changeset comments and the from and to tags.

When you are passing through PM me and maybe join me for a beer.

Cheers Phil

Hello Shan
Phil from the Data Working Group here.

Please can you explain these edits and your workflow?

What does source=deduce mean?

Cheers Phil

Hi Dan
OSM derives the relationship from level 10 being inside a level 6 or 8 inside a level 4 up to being inside a level 2 UK.
Cheers Phil

Hi Dan
I was atlking about your additions to the higher admin boundaries.

Reverting does just create a new version. We (the data working group) can redact but we only do that for thing that need tags be not seen.

The review requested is a bit misleading, it merely sets a flag that someone may spot but setting it no way guarantees anything will happen.

Cheers Phil

Boundary lines are imported from official data and are correct.
If they do not match features on the ground it suggests that they were traced without properly aligning imagery.
Cheers |Phil

Hi Phil from the Data Working Group here.
Please don't do this, the only logical conclusion is that the UK relation version number goes up exponentially.
I have removed this and amp planning to remove the others you have added.

Sorry about that, I should have gone back further.
Although the main issue was the lift gates.

Same dodgy mapping as at Stone

Due to your dodgy mapping OSMand was trying to sen me on a long diversion as you have rendered Aston by Stone Crossing un-routable by your addition of lift gates (tagging for the renderer?).
Please don't do that, level crossing barriers are mapped as and attribute to the level crossing. Please see railway=level%20crossing?uselang=en
Also the crossing tag you have added is for pedestrians to cross the road, not a railway crossing. This is a mistake I would expect from a beginner.
Cheers Phil

Hello
Describing a garage forecourt as a pedestrian highway is a little odd is it not?
There was nothing wron with the existing highway=service area=yes.
Cheers Phi

This is a PROW crossing, not a road.
I have restored it to the map.

There are no curent path orders for Whitchurch Rural.
This edit has removed a valid Restricted Byway. I am reverting these edits.
The crossing is clearly not intended for vehicles so will update from track to bridleway.

Still no response so reverted.
The level 6 authorities had been restored earlier.

Merely asking the source of these edits.

Google Maps, as you have linked above is absolutely not allowed as a source in OSM.
These edits will need to be reverted.

https://www.canadapost-postescanada.ca/cpc/en/support/kb/company-policies/terms-conditions/legal-terms-of-use-and-conditions says effectively that the site is for personal use so therefore does not include adding to OSM which is licensed to be used for any purpose.

Openstreetmap can only use opendat, or data we have specific permission to use.

The obvious gold standard is 'I went there and I saw it'. Just because something is on a website intended for personal use does not make it opendata.

"brand=Costcutter + amenity=post_office?"
Yes if you are mapping them as a single node. More correctly the shop should be mapped as an area with a post office node inside it.

"standalone counters"
The counter are separate. You do not wait to pay for a few beers behind someone collecting their pension.
The post office counter will have the expected security and away from the busy part of the shop to provide privacy.

https://www.anpost.com/Terms-of-Use particularly paragraph 3.

Did you obtain permission to reproduce that information as otherwise you are in breach of the terms of use for the website.