Hi, you have tagged the gate in the middle of Long Lane, blocking all traffic passing along the road. Is this correct? I suspect the gate probably belongs on the smaller road to the car park.

Thank you for all your work improving the map.

Are you sure this change makes sense?

You appear to have connected the pedestrian area outside Piccadilly station to the sidewalk that runs alongside Store Street underneath.

There is no way these two routes are connected: making wildly incorrect changes like this is incredibly unhelpful, and it's sad to see Facebook paying people to do this.

Please revert these mistaken changes that will mislead people using the map and avoid editing places you do not understand.

Thank you for helping to improve the map.

Adding the name "Pennine Way" to sections of the route seems unhelpful though.

The relation osm.org/relation/4082615 already exists, so I suggest duplicating this information on ways, such as osm.org/way/24779055, adds no value to the map.

Thank you for your continued work on OpenStreetMap.

When you add sidewalks to the map, such as at osm.org/way/1364211724 please tag the corresponding road such as osm.org/way/64059761 to note that the sidewalk is mapped separately, as described at osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way

Thank you. I often drive past here, but haven't got round to stopping and surveying the area properly.

This change adds two separate features for Lees Brook Mill so in the spirit of osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element I have merged them in osm.org/changeset/162478933

Thank you for adding the building outline: it looks like this duplicates the Aldi that already exists at osm.org/node/11351112076

As I mentioned on osm.org/note/3988550 I was unsure of the building's exact shape when I mapped the supermarket as a node.

It's probably best to delete the older node and move its tags onto the newer way you added rather than duplicating information: osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Thank you for your prolific work on OpenStreetMap, but please don't add duplicate information.

This change adds a node osm.org/node/12303973241 that duplicates osm.org/node/12303973241

You also added osm.org/node/12303973299 while removing useful information from osm.org/way/1112048603

In both cases, Aldi and B&M occupy the whole building, so tagging the way provides a more helpful description than adding a node that covers a small part of the way.

I'm fairly sure there is both a Barnardo's and Matalan here, so I'm unsure your fix describes what's on the ground accurately.

I have noted this at osm.org/note/4590104

Thank you for fixing this, and similar with Greenfield nearby.

Like Uppermill, Greenfield is not a suburb of Oldham, so many of these changes seem unhelpful.

Tagging Uppermill as a suburb of Oldham seems weird. Uppermill is a distinct village, part of Saddleworth, traditionally in Yorkshire, whereas Oldham is traditionally in Lancashire.

Uppermill, like other Saddleworth villages, is part of the borough of Oldham and has Oldham as its postal town, but it is in no meaningful way a suburb.

Thank you for your helpful work improving the map. When you add sidewalks to the map, for example osm.org/way/337782565, it is helpful to also add the sidewalk=separate tag to the corresponding road, for example osm.org/way/255565308, as described in osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way

Thank you for spotting my mistake: I have visited Slaithwaite a few times, but I can easily believe I misremembered this. I really appreciate you fixing the problem and letting me know.

Happy New Year to you too!

This changeset adds an obelisk at osm.org/node/11279248206 right next to an existing monument at osm.org/node/1845277943 - are these the same thing or are there really two separate monuments right next to each other?

You have mapped the house "Westview Bungalow" as two separate houses at osm.org/way/712004822 and osm.org/way/1328224519 but I'm sure there's only one house here, not two separate houses with the same name.

OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, not for adding imaginary things.

I'm going to delete this, and the "Beornen Settlement" you added in a different changeset because I'm sure they don't exist, but please let me know if you believe I have made a mistake.

osm.org/way/479672089 is now tagged as bridge=yes and ford=yes but it seems unlikely both a bridge and a ford exist here. Instead of using common sense it would help to map what exists here on the ground.

Please follow the recommended approach for bilingual names described at osm.wiki/Wales#Welsh_names

I have reverted this change in osm.org/changeset/158575506 for the reasons mentioned on osm.org/note/2087778