You have mapped a cycle path that doesn't physically exist, along the Hempstead Road in Watford. See osm.org/note/998641

I think you intended to indicate that cycling is allowed on the sidewalk, but see the above note for how to do that.

As you've actually mapped it, is is shown as being on private land, the wrong side of buildings from the road.

You have set the source for osm.org/relation/416471 to http://af3v.org/CarteAF3V/-Carte-des-grands-itineraires-.html , but when I look at that page, it says that the map is copyright and reproduction is forbidden.

Any source used for OSM must either be in the public domain, which cannot be the case here, or must be released, under a licence that has been approved by OSM.

Could you either point me to the grant of an approved licence for the use of data from that web site, or remove any data that you added to the map based on that web site.

You have further compounded the error here, not fixed it!

This POI is a cycle rental station, not the Federation Square Attraction. The correct fix was to remove the attraction tags, and all the other tags that went with that, e.g. the URL and the wheelchair access.

See also osm.org/note/982683

If you want the wheelchair access recorded, you need to find someone in Melbourne who can map the proper extent of the attraction and add it as a new, preferably area, feature.

Basically this started off as the rental station. Some wheelmap users seems to have just seen the name and has added wheelchair tags. Another user has compounded that error by adding tags that relate to the attraction, not the rental station, and finally you have even further compounded it by deleting the rental station without even re-mapping it (although that would be a delete and re-add, which would be wrong in itself - it the attraction that is the thing that should be added).

Your tagging of Neal's Yard as a mall is being discussed in osm.org/note/890406

It is definitely not a mall, as the walkways are open and the shops are separate buildings.

This changeset is being discussed on https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=58269

These may be good questions for the forum, but, from your description, I think I would look into natural=cliff for the sheer drop but only for that part of the boundary where it applies, and some variation on wetland= for the area.

I'm a little surprised that a sheer drop of 2m would be allowed in a municipal park without fencing.

Ditch doesn't work, because it would mean that the cross-section, dropped for about a metre, or less, returned to the original level, and dropped again, for about a metre, on the other side.

Oops. Re-issued against the correct changeset.

Littleover School Sixth Form looks like a description of the building, not its name. In that case, please see osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

This looks like a description of the building, not its name. In that case, please see osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Please be more careful to look what is already mapped before you make changes. Someone has already had to reverse your change of some woodland in a park to being just a park, and I'm about to remove three unnamed nodes that correspond to parks that are already mapped as areas.

Some of your other changesets look wrong, e.g. marking what could, at best, be graffiti, as tourist attractions. Normal criminal damage should not be mapped at all.

You also seem to have moved a footpath so that it crossed roads, when it was already accurately mapped, according to Bing. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would have to assume that you believed a GPS receiver at time of poor coverage, over what was already mapped.

Some people are treating these as malicious, although I'm hoping it is just a case of inexperience. See https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=644517#p644517

If you can explain what you intended to do(probably best done on the forum), someone can help guide you in how to do it properly. Also, as noted in that thread, there is a large OSM community in Derby that you can meet in person, as long as you are allowed in a pub.

Ditches are linear features that are impassible on foot. Looking at the Bing imagery, it looks like what has been mapped here are area features, representing a depression. ditch cannot be used on an area.

It's difficult to be sure, but it also looks like these are not impassable,

This changeset is being discussed on https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=644335

Not sure if anyone reads feedback on this account, but it looks to me as though someone confused the Federation Square bicycle rental station, in Melbourne, with the square itself.

Bicycle rental stations are not particularly useful for wheelchair users!

The error seems to have been compounded in later edits.

As a general rule one should not abbreviate names. If they need rendering, that should be done by the map renderer. 52nd Ave Bike Blvd should be 52nd Avenue Bike Boulevard.

osm.wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29

If a shorter, but ambiguous name is used locally, you can provide a short_name, but even then abbreviating words is probably not a good idea.

The changeset comment does not match the full scope of this change. It also includes changes in Greece.

"Photography" sounds more like the name of a department than a building. In which case, it is probably better to leave the building unnamed and map the department as a POI or as an area of interest. Finance & Registry is probably hte same.

There is no building visible on Bing at the position of the building with the name "Courtyard". Also, courtyard sounds like a description of what is actually there, rather than its name. It might just be possible for me to veriify the absence of a building there, from a public right of way, but I'm not going to be able to get close enough to see what is actually there.

Canteen sounds more like a description than a name, in which case it should be un-named.

Nice to see that someone in the local Uni is taking an interest in the map, however:

Block J seems to have another building on top of it, at the same layer. When you mapped it, you should have corrected the existing Graphics Art building, which was probably never a building in the first place.

Also, is this building really named Block J, or is J simply a ref= or addr:unit?:

Also, please indicate the source of your naming in either the changeset comment or a source tag, as Bing does not provide this. "Local knowledge" is OK, if you are a student or administrator.

addr:housename is not appropriate for a trading estate; addr:place may be right. Also the web site gives the information needed for addr:unit.

In addition, if it is possible to deduce the boundary, with reasonable accuracy , it would be useful to map the name and extent of the trading estate (as an appropriate landuse). I would also think it would be possible to provide an address for the building.

Trading estates tend to be be private land and road on them not public highways, so it might also be worth looking into the access status of the roads.