Hi, John. The brewery you added at osm.org/way/256209971 looks like its a duplicate of osm.org/node/6168786967 - I wonder if it might be worth merging the details of the node onto the way, and presumably tagging the way as a building.

It seems strange to for you tag this as a service road attached to what was tagged as a track osm.org/way/222711494 - based on a visit today I've also tagged the track as a service road, which seems more sensible than the previous tagging.

You have created a place of worship in the middle of a reservoir. I suspect this is a mistake, but wanted to check you didn't intend to add a building that existed before the reservoir was created.

Thank you for helping to improve the map. I'm surprised you marked this church as closed as it seems operational from walking past it. What makes you think it's closed?

Thanks for these improvements. I've just improved the junction further in osm.org/changeset/89202219 as the previous tags suggested it was impossible to turn right from Mottram Road into Huddersfield Road.

Thank you for improving OpenStreetMap.

This change adds a new Clitheroe Market way at osm.org/way/815637499 but there's already one mapped at osm.org/way/32133883 so now the map shows both. I've never been here, but I suspect there's only one market, not two.

Thank you for your detailed, informative reply. I agree that the "Tagging for the renderer" issue is more complicated than many mappers acknowledge.

I also recognise that the default rendering of the map hides a lot of useful information. I suspect it's almost impossible to create a good default that works well for everyone. As you say, it's far from easy for everyone to create new renderings of the map.

If you're looking for an alternative rendering that shows bridge references, you might find https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html helpful.

For example, the bridge across Arthur Road at osm.org/way/16222422 has its reference shown on https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=19&lat=51.434565&lon=-0.19949 whereas the default rendering hides this detail.

I don't believe the bridge by the New Inn should have a name tag, as it's not commonly known by any name. It does have an official reference number, however.

I hope you will continue to add useful information to the map and do not let disagreements about the details put you off. I happen to agree with the commonly accepted standard of using the "name" and "ref" for specific details, but I realise some people will disagree with it.

Firstly, thank you for your work on OpenStreetMap.

Some of the bridges you added seem odd to me: the "Bridge 72" you added at osm.org/way/747859531 is already mapped at osm.org/way/33534416 and your version uses the "name" tag whereas the existing way uses the more sensible bridge_ref tag. osm.wiki/Key:name suggests using the name tag for commonly used names. I used to live in New Bradwell and never heard of anyone using "Bridge 72" as its name although people might refer to it as "the bridge by the New Inn". What are the advantages of the extra ways you have created over the existing, more appropriately tagged, ways?

The network of service roads that you added between Cartwright Street and Talbot Road have no access= restrictions on them. They go through the middle of an industrial area on private land. Routers such as OSRM and GraphHopper (see the osm.org/ home page if you don't know them) are unhelpfully sending pedestrians along these roads. Please use suitable access= tags when adding roads like this.

It seems odd to add these "service roads" without the car parks that they provide access to. It makes the map look strange to someone with local knowledge, and might confuse people who don't know the area.

Thank you for helping to improve the map. I don't know this area, but it looks like your change fixes osm.org/note/1792887

Thanks for adding the note: I walked along here yesterday and noticed the path is on the other side of the hedge, so I've fixed that in osm.org/changeset/84974694

Thank you. I think it's important to look at the surrounding map whenever you make your edits. In this case it seems strange to have a non-private track only reachable by a private track, so I'm pleased you have fixed this. Also, there's no need to create a new way when you could easily extend an existing way: osm.org/way/780408078 could have been a continuation of osm.org/way/222071788 for example.

What's the reason for this change? Given that osm.org/way/222071788 is a private track and it's the only way of reaching these two tracks, why does it make sense to remove "access=private" from them both?

Hi, thank you for these improvements. I walked near here yesterday and have left osm.org/way/779370307 that you added in place although I didn't see an obvious way for the footpath to head through Fields Farm. It's possible I missed the path, so I'm considering adding a note to suggest a further check, but you might know the area well so I decided to ask first. What do you think?

Thank for for helping to improve the map. Kensington Palace is already mapped at osm.org/relation/904705 so I've deleted this duplicate node.

Thank for for helping to improve the map. Kensington Palace is already mapped at osm.org/relation/904705 so I've deleted this duplicate node.

Thanks for confirming. I've improved the tagging of this byway in osm.org/changeset/81546306.

Thanks, I didn't want to change it myself just in case it was intentional.

Hi, thanks for your quick reply. osm.wiki/Tag:service%3Ddrive-through seems like an odd tag to use as there's no drive-through there. Also, are you sure there's a 10mph speed limit? I haven't been along all of this road, but I didn't notice speed limit signs anywhere.