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

Noswaith dda, croisi y osm.

Thank you for your edit however a few things need fixing.

Firstly the A40 needs to be changed back to a trunk road.

Secondly the name tag is for actual names, it is not there to add information to the map.

The correct way is to use access tagging and I believe for you description that the coorect tagging is motor_vehicle=no / foot=yes / bicycle=dismount

I have made these corrections but please let me know what you think.

Diolch Phil

Again where are you sourcing your gps data from? As the sources you have used for this edit are clearly outdated. The smart motorway work which is described in previous changesets is still ongoing. When making such changes it is always wise to read the comments made by mappers with local knowledge.

Please comply with the organised editing guidelines as previously requested,.

I have reverted this changeset.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM,

This edit appears to be rather incorrect, the marker was already correctly positioned on the hamlet and it seems very odd that you have moved it into a caravan park. This could be very misleading to map users.

I am reverting this edit.

Cheers Phil

This is not correct and needs to be reverted.