Looks odd, no physical infrastructure for a shop on satellite imagery. Is it a popup?

I've added the building back as it's still visible on Maxar -- maybe just delete name/amenity tags when buildings are still present.

Brilliant -- couldn't see much of a path on satellite imagery (and it's always looked pretty green when I've walked past) -- there was a vague suspicion on GPX tracks.

I think the link was members-only?

Looks like it might connect to the service road from satellite imagery? If so, maybe just access=private inside the allotments?

It's already marked as a disused:amenity -- don't normally add "(Closed)" to names.

I hope you didn't copy this from the copyrighted website: https://ldwa.org.uk/ldp/members/show_path.p

Marked as "motor_vehilce=destination", there is a clear parked car at northern end (and no signage): https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=0e54796a-4eb6-49da-b2dd-0aefc1d91e1c&cp=51.530547~-2.475129&lvl=19&dir=239.35243&pi=-3.0015583&style=x&mo=z.2.34&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027

Ok, I've taken off the "bicycle=no" tag

I disconnected a track going through a hedge.

Great!

You could map width, incline, surface even osm.wiki/Key:mtb:scale -- and hope cycle routing takes "notice" of it.

But osm.wiki/Key:access is really based on legal rights.

I'm surprised the bollard didn't affect it: osm.org/node/3777401730

Probably best to remove the description and mark it as "power=substation"?

OpenStreetMap doesn't map suitability.

The access specifiers are really for mapping legal restrictions - like whether there's a no cycling sign. A quick check with Bing Streetside doesn't seem to show any such signs - so I'm not sure this is totally valid?

I've connected the footpath to the road so that routing software will be able to use it.

Maxar Premium seems to show buildings being developed - do you agree?

There's some strange elements like "Cycle Track" and a cycleway that's coincident with the northern end of Wedmore Vale. You've also added a gate on a tertiary highway -- or looks like it.

I'm afraid this changeset probably should be reverted -- and maybe redone?

Based on your changeset comment I've marked it as a disused:amenity

You might find trying ESRI clarity imagery works better for older buildings.

It would be great if you could please include more description in the changeset comment so that local mappers can review it more easily.

Look to be in the wrong location -- are these just copied from a copyrighted website? Does OSM have a licence from ASDA?