Hi, please could you explain where this, and your other mass edits were discussed?

See osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Also did you seek permission to use your claimed source, which is copyright.

It would have been polite to have at least discussed yhis with the UK community on the talk-gb mailing list.

I am also not convinced this is permanent in all outlets. On first glance this did seem to be a joke, have you ever been to Greggs?

I believe this, and other similar mass edits.

Cheers Phil

Hi Karmsudi
I did not revert this.

The gps trace is likely to be correct, but the assumption that it is a trace from driving was the mistake. There is a footway here, please use the trace to create a highway=footway here.

Thanks Phil

Hi, just wondering why you have removed the private tags from this service road?

In my local knowledge access=private was incorrect, this is a public footpath, however it should be motor_vehicle=private.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has gone a little wrong.

For example osm.org/way/653267745/history was tagged as suface=ashphalt, however you have changed it to simply paved which has lost more detailed information. Is there a reason you believe this to be better?

Paved should only be used if you really have no other information. A cycleway in Shrewsbury is unlikely to be unpaved hence adding paved does not really add any useful information. From my experience all the road following cycleways are ashphalt.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has gone a little wrong.

Please stop and think when assuming that residential roads are missing. It is very unlikely that the mapper who mapped this area would have missed a public road.

This is a private shared driveway.
1. It is not shown in OS Opendata Streetview.
2. Imagery clearly shows that the pavement is crossed.

Cheers Phil

Hi, for access within Portmerion I would have gone with customers rather than private.

Cheers Phil

Not necessarily totally wrong, the imagery indicates a footpath may be here.

Was there a GPS trace here?

What I suspect may have happened is that the GPS receiver is in the handheld device which the driver carries and the customer 'signs'. The driver walked through the footpath, rather than drive around.

The presence of a GPS trace therefore does not always indicate the route taken by a vehicle.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has gone a little wrong.
It is very unlikley that the mapper who surveyed this area would have missed a public road.
Imagery suggests that this is a private shared driveway, for example the pavement on Crowdale Road is crossed and this is not shown on OS OpenData.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has gone very wrong.
It is highly unlikely that the mappers who have previously surveyed and mapped this are would have missed a road that cannot be seen on imagery.

What evidence/souces have you used to determine that a road exists here?

Cheers Phil

Thank you.

If you are working as part of directed/organised editing you should comply with https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/6/62/Organised_Editing_Guidelines.pdf

There should be a description, and link to the wiki page in your profile.

Cheers Phil

Also who are 'we'?

Hi Quamar
It sounds like you are tagging for the renderer here, or in this case tagging for a broken router.
Have never heard of Mentz but if it cannot understand the psv tag you should report the fault to the developers rather than change perfectly correct OSM data.

Cheers Phil

Hi, bus=yes is redundant here as a bus is a public service vehicle and is allowed by the tag psv=yes.
The question here is are hackneys allowed, also covered by psv=yes? If not then psv should probably be removed but what do the signs say?
Cheers Phil

Hi, there was already a name tag for Tesco, there is no need to duplicate this by adding a name:en and that should not be TescoTesco.
I am reverting this edit.
Cheers Phil

Bore da, in OSM the name tags we use are the actual name of the object.
The name of this "pub" is Yr Hen Orsaf", J D Weatherspoon is the operator (already tagged) and Yr Hen Orsaf hardly belongs in name:en.
I am reverting this edit.
Cheers Phil

Hi, please could you keep your changes to a sensible areas.
This changset has changes in both Essex and Cheshire and this creates a changebox covering a very large area and makes it difficult for local mappers to review your changes.
Cheers Phil

Bore da, welcome to OSM.
This edit has gone a little bit wrong. The wikipedia tags for Powis were already correct, is there is a reason that you have added a wikipedia tag for Duntulm Castle, which is on Skye, n'est pas?
I am reverting this edit
Cheers Phil

Hi, this looks like a shared driveway, not a public residential road. Shared driveways are a common characteristic of current developments.
When adding residential roads in new build areas please remember that it is very unlikely that the local mapper who surveyed the area would have missed a public road.
Cheers Phil

Hi, thank you for replying. Use of mapillary is fine. I was concerned that you had used Google streetview based on your changeset comment where you said streetview. Putting that word in a comment will get alarm bells ringing.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit and any others in which you have used prohibited sources should be reverted.

We do not permission to use streetview under any circumstances, this should be part of the basic training which Amazon give.

However this changeset confused me, having local knowledge it seemed unlikely, however what I assume you are trying to map is visible in mapillary but this is not a legal restriction. The signs are temporary and look nothing like legal roadsigns.

This type of sign is an internal instructions to construction traffic and should not be mapped in OSM,

Cheers Phil