I also notice Nine Mile Burn was already on the map at osm.org/way/570736948 - I wonder if it makes sense to delete your more recently added node.

Thank you for all your work on OpenStreetMap. I notice you added osm.org/node/8585758506 as "Nile Mile Burn" but nearby road signs suggest this place is called "Nine Mile Burn" so I have fixed this in osm.org/changeset/123673478

Thank you. It would also be worth checking all of the tags used on way 5783065 to determine if any others seem suitable and adding those that do.

You've tagged this road as highway=service which seems correct, but it's only attached to osm.org/way/5783065 which also has several other useful tags such as access=private applied to it. Do any of those tags apply to this road you added? It seems very likely that this is also a private road given that it can only be reached from a private road.

This looks like a residential street rather than a service road, so I've altered its tagging in osm.org/changeset/122429221 and added its name from OS OpenMap Local.

Thank you for your work on OpenStreetMap. I note that the Wikidata ID you added already exists at osm.org/node/245941740 which is on publicly accessible land, whereas the node you added it to is inaccessible, behind a fence on private land. I suggest you revert your change. Also, the node you edited is right next to a trig point mapped at osm.org/node/9236615456 - it seems odd to have both those features mapped separately.

I've fixed this in osm.org/changeset/119620181 - please let me know if you notice any problems

I've fixed this in osm.org/changeset/119620181 - please let me know if you notice any problems

Right, so they're the same thing and would benefit from deduplification?

This looks like a duplicate of osm.org/way/79713962 - I doubt it makes sense to have the same feature mapped twice.

This looks like a duplicate of osm.org/way/79713962 - I doubt it makes sense to have the same feature mapped twice.

Thank you for this helpful improvement to the map. You might like to consider using more descriptive tags instead of using a "description" tag in English. The "parking=layby" tag described at osm.wiki/Tag:parking%3Dlayby is commonly used: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/parking#values

Hi, thank you for your helpful work improving the map. I notice you used "closed:shop" to tag the closed shop. However, this tag is rarely used: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/closed:shop - I've amended it to the more common "disused:shop" described at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/disused:shop

Hi, thank you for all your helpful changes near Hopton recently. I notice you have tagged several agricultural fields as "landuse=grass". Although these areas have a grass surface, I wonder whether something like "landuse=meadow" and "meadow=pasture" would be more descriptive given the descriptions on osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass and osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dmeadow - what do you think?

Hi. Thank you for adding these new houses to the map! It's conventional to map addresses using the "addr:" tags not "name" as you have done here. If you're interested in improving this you might find osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom helpful - let me know if you have any questions.

I have fixed this in osm.org/changeset/117719401 after receiving a private message from Horace Bear.

Thank you for your work on the map. I notice you reverted my changes in osm.org/changeset/109760998 to the Alport Heights car parks. Can you explain why you consider these changes an improvement? The car parks have been closed since the start of the pandemic, so I believe disused:amenity=parking makes much more sense than amenity=parking. You have also changed the operator to a weird name and removed the area tag. I don't understand how these improve the map.

Thank you for adding the camp site's name. I couldn't see the name signed anywhere when I mapped the site.

Thank you for your comments, Douglal. I assume the OS map you checked was an old, out of copyright map. You're right that the land to the east of the trigpoint is higher, so I've reverted this changeset in osm.org/changeset/117048107

I've left a follow-up comment on osm.org/changeset/116631600 which moved this node.