I would include the community name to be clear so prow_ref="Llanrug 75"

Cheers Phil

There is only one single on the ground object, Shropshire Council and Unitary authority are exactly the same thing.

Q21694759 is a duplication that appears to have been created by someone who lacked any short of on the ground knowledge.

Why have you changed this?

The orignal wikidata tag was accuarate and you seem to have replaced it with a duplicate.The admin area Shropshire is the Shropshire Council area.

Please revert this edit.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Please could you look at note/2150713.
The mapping of York Street does look a bit odd, I can seen no physical division, only paint) on any aerial imagery and the bit of tertiary link seems strange. Should there be some sort of access restriction?

Cheers Phil

Thank you
I have reverted just those items.

<rant at iD>The feature of iD where it suggests fixes to objects that the mapper has no direct interest in was a very poor decision and really should be considered a mechanical edit</rant>

Cheers Phil

Hi, thank you for your edit.
Your comment suggests that this is a map roulette task to depreciate bridge_name, fine there is no problem there.

You do seem to have changed other stuff, have you reviewed each of these or are these blind edits based on iD suggestions?

For example you have changed way/523111898/history from a footway to a path, why?

Also you have added the tag public_transport=station to Leicester North, which is a heritage line and not public transport.

Cheers Phil

Certainly not a furniture shop either, its a big barn place that sells almost anything and changes with the seasons. I tend to go with shop=variety but will fix it later

Cheers Phil

Thank you for changing this, however you have not restored the buildings which you had removed the tags from.

When starting to map it is always better to map the places that you know, and look at the changes you have made. We all make mistakes but by looking at the area we quickly learn and fix them.

We do need to revert all of your changes, iD is not able to do this, please do not make any further edits in the UK.

Cheers Phil

Thank you for the explaination, but please remember we are not allowed to use Google to obtain information.
Individual shops websites tend to have terms and conditions which prohibit usage, beyond personal use, and certainly prohibit the information being published (such adding it to OSM).

Cheers Phil

Again this is not a single building, why have you added the tag shop=mall, it is a retail park. What Americans call a strip mall.
Cheers Phil

Why have you tagged Charlies as a garden centre?

Cheers Phil

Bore da, last time I was here the retail park was not a single large building. The shops were very definitely separate buildings and my car was left outdoors in the car park. What are you trying to correct.
Also a bigger concern is what is the source of the unit addresses as they were not in OSM before?

Cheers Phil

Again, why have you done this?

There is no single building covering the retail park, the car park is clearly outside.

Cheers Phil

Again why, what are you correcting? There is not a single building covering the entire retail park.

Cheers Phil

Hi, what are you correcting here? You seem to have deleted the retail area, which doesn't look wrong to me.

Cheers Phil

HI, these edits have gone kind of pear shape.
You have removed the building tags from the buildings and have then added a large building which covers the entire retail park, including the car park. Please can you explain what you were trying to fix as your changeset comment does not explain it too well.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this change is little confusing.

You have added a name:en to the cafe, whilst leaving the name in place. If the name has changed, then you should change the name tag. I Assume the name should be Blasau Delicatessen and is no longer Royal House. Also based on the name is it still a cafe?
In Wales I would only expect to see name:en alongside name:cy.
Also wondering why your locale is set to en-AU?

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM.
What is the source of this height? I do not remember it being 78m tall :)

More seriously I suspect you meant 78 feet, that should be entered as 78', although it is preferred for buildings that the value is converted to metres.

Cheers Phil

Hi Srinatpa
What was wrong with the original mapping of the bollard?

A bollard blocks routing of motor_vehicles with all routers I know of, and if that is not occuring with the router your drivers are using then it suiggests that the router is broken and should be fixed.

What router are your drivers using?

If the bollard needed access tags to clarify then they should have been added to the bollard, for example the bollard may be removable to allow emergency access. But typically motor_vehicle=no, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes.

This area has been on the to-survey list for a couple of months, an unpaved residential road is a bit odd, especially the way other roads are arranged around it,

For flooding, rain and lockdown reasons the survey has yet to happen.

If you want to see PROW refs you need a more specialist render of the OSM database. For example http://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=18&lat=52.866147&lon=-2.727271

HTH Phil