Hi, welcome to OSM. The name of the railway through Telford does not suddenly change to the Telford main line. Names in osm should reflect what is verifiable on the ground. Please do not add names you have invested.
Please use meaningful changeset comments.

This is vandalism, am reverting this.

Hi, welcome to OSM. Thank you for your edit, however Aldi is already mapped. I am therefore going to remove these duplicates.
Please continue editing but please do not duplicate existing data.
Cheers Phil

Also you must absolutely not be using streetview. It is a copyright source which we do not have permission to use.

Hi, thank you for your edit however deletion is a little drastic.
Another mapper had taken the time to add other tags to the object. Such as the address and postcode which remain valid and will still be valid when another business opens there.
Also leaving the node in place keeps history within the database, over time we can see the life cycle of the object.
Please simply update the relevant tags, is it an empty restaurant the change the tags to reflect that such as disused:amenity or just remove the amenity tag and name.
Cheers Phil

Thank you for your response, however the sabre wiki is not an admissible source in OSM as the source of the information it contains cannot be verified and is likely to be from sources not admissible in OSM.
OSM prefers data that mappers have been and observed for themselves, not copied from somewhere.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=OX22nrygvcafRnDOxbuwFQ&lat=52.303851511687185&lng=-0.09620790524513723&z=17 shows the actual sign at J26 and nowhere does Gailley Hill appear, maybe it would be more useful to add exit_to tags that are actually useful.
As these names do not appear on signs that are useful to users of our database I would ask that they are removed.
Cheers Phil

Hi, what is the source and usefulness of these names. When I have travelled along this stretch only the numbers suggesting the names are fictional or just descriptions.
Cheers Phil

Hi, thank you for this addition but where did these turn restrictions come from? I do not remember any such signs along this road and there are none shown on mapillary.
Turn restrictions are only used for legal restrictions and should not be used to improve routing.
Cheers Phil

Are you absolutely certain about this?

Whilst two sections of cycleway is a little unlikely you seem to have removed both and left a big gap rendering this route unusable on foot or by cyclists. Please remember that OSM is a community project and it is important that mappers are aware and considerate of all users and not simply their own usecase.

What sources have you used?

Cheers Phil

Hi, I think this edit has gone very wrong. Please can you explain why you have changed a residential area to an administrative boundary?
Cheers Phil

Seems to have been reverted by originator without comment or explaination

Hi, what is the source of this import?

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM. Thank you for your contribution but you have made a very common newbie mistake. The name tag is for actual names, not to add a description, This object is already tagged as barrier=turnstile and that is all it needs.
Cheers Phil

Also if there is nothing on the ground, what source have you used?

Hi, if this is neither under construction or funded then it is extremly misleading to tag is as construction. It should be removed until work actually starts, as it may never happen and this is unlikely to be the exact path.

Cheers Phil

No, but I can see it exists and it appears on OS maps and it was mapped by a local mapper so I see no reason to remove their work.

It is a driveway, it has been tagged as highway=service which implies it is not a public highway. I will tag it more implicitly as as service=driveway, access=private.

Then the correct way is to tag it as access=private, not pretend that it doesn't exist.

Hi, welcome to OSM.
I am a little confused as to why you have deleted this service road, it appears on OS Opendata and is the only way to navigate to Cwmffrwd for delivery drivers so appears to be important information.
Cheers Phil

Please answer the question here, changeset discussion should be open and visible to all.
It is not acceptable to ask mappers to send changeset discussions to a non-osm email address.

Cheers Phil