But asphalt is the default surface on roads in the UK. Why add redundant tags?

Correction. Sorry, I forgot that this was a straight deletion.

The place is empty and there is no reason to suppose that it will remain a food establishment.

I agree that the address is likely to remain the same. I doubt that I will bother to map it unless the new establishment is of some significance to users of the map.

I see no point in leaving it on the map while it is empty.

As I pass the place regularly, I will probably remap it when it is reoccupied if it is of interest.

I expect that the address is the same, but I doubt that the other information is unchanged.

I provided that original information, so have no problems in deleting it when I was not sure that it was still valid. I am more concerned with adding the food hygiene rating when I have time.

It was a very quick edit when I was short of time. I hope to refine the changes when I am less busy. I had been meaning to update the shops and so on for some time. There have been other changes that I know about, but have been too busy to grab gps records thus far.

Are you local?

You have added new roads that are not yet present. Please consult with local mappers before guessing about what is on the ground. This area has been regularly and carefully surveyed, and if the roads were there, they would have been mapped.

I have now looked at the OS Streetview. So I can see where the original came from. And it is just wrong!

As I have found from previous experience, that Streetview is so approximate (presumably OS do have accurate mapping, but they degrade it before making it open), that it is just too poor compared to reality. Or that is old mapping: water courses are fairly dynamic and the road building may have modified things a fair amount.
Until I walk the bank of the river with a gps, which is probably not feasible in most places, I can't be certain, but various portions of the river are clearly visible from the adjacent tracks, and it doesn't seem to match OS Streetview.

Why do you believe that OS open data is reliable? I have frequently found it to be inaccurate and frequently outdated.

I haven't looked at OS Opendata Streetview, as yet. But I know that area well and have surveyed it many times. That water= natural seemed to be just fiction. But that whole area is a complete nightmare which looks very like an old misguided attempt to tag for the renderer. And shared nodes makes cleaning up really tedious, even with tools. For example, the wood covers everything including the river. But there are weird bits of wood cut back around the river, and this fictional water body. I can only imagine this was an historic attempt to make the river stand out in some renderer where the contrast with the wood was not "good enough". I have spent far, far too long trying to clean up that mapping to make it match reality better. I will try and look at the Streetview, but previous experience suggests that it can be very inaccurate.

I think that as I have been on the ground with accurate gps in the last two days and many other times, I am in a much better position to say that this deletion is justified and improves the map. Spurious detail surely has no place in OSM.

Sorry. I should have checked the history properly. I see it goes back to another changeset by wh68. I was on site again maybe 10 metres away from the River a few hours ago. I can't see any point in this natural=water which is wildly inaccurate when the River itself is mapped. I am inclined simply to delete it, but am loathe to do that. But after consideration, I have now done just that.

The riverbanks around the East Looe River near High Wood including
osm.org/way/273443971
look ridiculous to me. I know the area well, and while one can't access that part of the river directly, it is not much more than a wide stream there. Maybe 3 metres wide, and typically only 50cm deep. The concrete channel under the road towards the south is only around 2 metres wide, and the river/stream is usually only a few cm deep. I was there 2 days ago.

I have now found way 170991577 and corrected that as well. Seems to be the only other case.

I have corrected the tag on way 170485030. Haven't found the other one as yet.

No idea how that happened: it was a long time ago. I am sure that it was not intentional. Maybe josm filled in a tag with some sort of default that I didn't notice.

I was surveying with a gps-equipped dashcam + a pretty accurate gps unit as an extra check. Mainly improving geometry as I recall. I have deleted the dashcam video (lack of storage capacity), so can't see whether I thought the roundabout had vanished. But if it had, I think that I would have remembered and probably added a note. So I think it is probably just a mistake. Feel free to correct it.

Hope that there aren't any more of these.

It doesn't fit my notion of a meadow, despite the local authority. The OSM wiki page does suggest "mainly used for hay (meadow) or for grazing animals (pasture)", so I think the OSM tag doesn't really fit. It is obviously a fairly deep artificial excavation, and while I also have not seen it with any substantial water, I do think landuse=basin, basin=retention should be the main tags. Or maybe landuse=basin;meadow with basin=retention and meadow=transitional ? Perhaps even natural=grassland instead of meadow, even if the wiki says this excludes wetlands. The standard renderer might want to mark it as water (blue colour) if the main tag was landuse=basin alone, but we don't want to tag for the renderer :-)
If it had both basin and natural=grassland, not sure what the renderer would do.

Of course, we could invent a new tag
just for that, or even add something like water=intermittent.

Is this surgery open again?

I don't think the area to the West of Deer Park Road up to the new Windrush Place is a meadow. Have you been there? It is a flood defence basin. I surveyed this thoroughly many years ago, and pass it fairly often, including a few hours ago. It is usually grassy with a few rushes and scrub, at least when it is dry.

Slightly odd with building=yes?
I do see that you have included St.Mary's itself, but I think that usual semantics is that the whole area is a building.

You are joking about the "heath"s, surely? You surely cannot have visited the area.

I know and have repeatedly surveyed much of this area, and if there was any heath, I would probably have tagged it.

There are no obvious tags for the sort of mixed vegetation and low woodland typical of much of this coast.

Please revert or delete the invented "heaths".

Well it certainly isn't anywhere near this node. It is almost certainly a sign for the Cheesewring Farm Caravan site which has been mapped for many years.

I think that I have done a partial revert, but it is the first time that I have used the reversion tool.

Please comment if it is now OK.

No idea how that happened although I do find that it easy to drag things by mistake in josm. Usually I notice before uploading.

I was surprised that the M4 was so poorly aligned with gps and imagery. I guess most people are a little intimidated by changing such a major road. Perhaps I should have been as well!

Thanks for spotting this!

Do you mean Folly Brook athttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2931735704?

I certainly didn't intend to touch that?

I have just noticed that you have removed these side road names. That is surely wrong!
The address of the houses along these side roads is that of the road of which they are a "part", in this case Burford Road. It is very common in Witney for side roads to share the name with a road from which they branch. I think that this needs reverting. People need to be able to find addresses from road names.

If it is somehow inconvenient for travel line , it is surely a trivial bit of programming to inspect the highway tag when several roads share a name to determine the principal road.