You seem to have extended Stuart House to Include the library?

This seems to be just wrong. The library has moved to Luxstowe house temporaily while the building is refurbished. This is anothe example where you seem to have removed the old proper tagging with nodes for the current amenity and put that tagging on the building which, as in this case, has cahnged function. Although not to the extent of magically merging with Stuart House.

Could you plese be more careful. Liskeard has been carefully mapped and you are introducing errors.

This wasn't a correction. The whole area is ridiculous and is very very mixed. Hence mixed tagging. Maybe I should have just deleted it. But I corrected as best I could by calling it mixed.
Did you not read the note?

One problem is that you have added the tag for a bank on a building when there is already a node for the bank. In this case Barclays Bank. I happen to have originally mapped both the bank (as a node) and the building. I included the name of the building as Barclays bank, but did not add the amenity=bank as a tag. That belongs on the node. They are logically separate. The building might change use, even if we were sure that the building was used exclusively as a bank.

I think that you may have done similar things in other places around Liskeard.
The same holds for shops and the like.

You seem to be using imagery which is out of date. In particular, most/all of the buildings that you have added to the Cattle Market have been demolished. I surveyed it a couple of hours ago. Most of the southern area is now a construction site: mainly bare soil just now. I have a gpx trace of the boundary of that area taken earlier today.

Please be careful to avoid unreliable imagery, and check the history of things that you modify.

Yes. I have also just checked :-)
Sorry, but I thought that I had checked, and the handrail wasn't tagged. But somehow I got that wrong. I don't know why I didn't add the handrail myself when I first surveyed. Maybe it was added later, or I hadn't a photograph to hand.

So you are absolutely correct and I completely agree about tagging it.

I am a bit confused by your comment about the handrail.
There isn't one as I recall. Not that I think that needs explicit tagging...

I rather thought that was what I had been doing for many years. I see that I have uploaded 871 public gps tracks so far in addition to my private traces. They have all been used to improve the quality of the OSM database. I take great care to map as accurately as I can almost always from ground survey. It is annoying when armchair mappers ignore source tags and history and override properly surveyed areas.
Not that my mapping cannot be improved...

But where is the gate? This is a private drive not open to the public.
And, if I remember correctly, the surface is gravel, at least at the entrance.

Apologies.I have now discovered that you had not modified the main channel, but just added the banks. I called it the Windrush, so that was my fault.

I was concerned that it was mapped just like the main course, although there is often only a small stream there. I visited it a few hours ago, and because the river is high, the fish pass is wide open and there is a large flow. But it varies a lot.

I will try to find time to clean things up, I still don't think it should be mapped as part of the main river. Mind you, one could argue the the mill stream is not really part of the Windrush either, although it usually carries most of the flow. Not sure that it has its own name.

You have marked the fish pass as part of the river! I had mapped it properly from gps surveys. You seem to have just deleted that. Please be more careful. I will try and fix that when I have time.

suc -> such.

Likewise asphalt.

Please consult the source tag. oneway=no is the default. If it was oneway, it would have been mapped as suc.

Completely wrong around Baytree Hill in Liskeard. What was your source?

You have introduced an error on the map by this edit. Rumours Cafe in Liskeard was previously mapped separately from the building. You seem to have deleted that, and added my tags to the building. That is WRONG. The building houses several shops and businesses as well as the cafe.

Please do not override local knowledge and survey with inaccurate data.

Tags for cafes and the like should not normally be on a building except in exceptional cases when it is known that the building is dedicated to that single use. And perhaps not even then.

If you have done this elsewhere, it should be reviewed.

Should this bridleway have
designation=public_Bridleway ?
See osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom

It is a little while since I was there.

A typo on Moor Avenue water works?

But that has meant the the map is wrong! I am regularly surveying the site, and I will update the situation as it evolves so the the OSM map is accurate as possible. Guessing from imagery is OK when there are no local mappers with local knowledge and reasonably accurate repeated gps surveys I have just done another survey a few hours ago and updated to the current situation. The map now is a pretty good representation of what is there now, at least where accessible.

Are you sure? I surveyed this place about 1 day before your edit. All this was fenced off construction, so I could not get to this area for a proper survey. I think this is probably a construction road destined to be residential.

Outdated Bing imagery is not likely to be of much use if that is really what you used.

I checked yesterday: you are right. The ditches are there. But the ones on the south side are overgrown, so were not very obvious.

Are you sure about the ditches on the South side of Deer Park field? We both know the area, but I don't think I have ever noticed anything like that there. I cycled past a few hours ago and I didn't notice anything: but I wasn't paying particular attention. I have only just come across these "ditches" on OSM.