You have two pubs with the same name at the same location. Why?

Thank you Olivia
Please remember that no means illegal, not discouraged. However this road is part of NCN 82 so even discouraging bikes would be wrong. As for horses it would be very unusual to discourage them on a public road.

Cheers Phil

Bore da
Just wondering why you have tagged osm.org/way/396445808 as illegal to ride a bike or a horse?
It appears to be just a normal unclassified road.

Diolch Phil

Bore da
What is the source of this edit?

Prohibiting motor vehicles on an unclassified highway seems unlikely. How do farmers access their land?

The road looks like it is well surfaced, which again makes a prohibition on motor vehicles seem unlikely.

Diolch Phil

Fixed in osm.org/changeset/136367650

Hi, this edit has gone rather wrong.

Firstly, and whilst the turn restriction is sort of correct, as in going from Langley Avenue to Abbey Lane you would not be allowed to turn right, but neither would you if coming from Abbey Rise. So the restriction would just need to be a normal via-node restriction.

However the angled crossover looks very odd.

Checking Streetside it is clear that the crossover does not connect with Abbey Rise at all, but crosses straight and is to the south a bit.

The correct mapping would be just to correctly redraw the crossover in its proper position.

Cheers Phil

Or it could be leisure=amusement_arcade, but this needs a survey.

After 8 years are you sure it even still exists? Or has the same name?

Armchairing away problems such as shop=yes only makes it harder for local mappers to find and correctly update these problems.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Just wondering what source you used for this edit? Did you actually visit the location?

Cheers Phil

Hi
This looks very much like a caravan park to me.
Has it been redeveloped?
Cheers Phil

Bore da
Welcome to OSM and thank you for your edits.

We normally tag a road signed as unsuitable for motors as motor_vehicle=discouraged. Permissive is incorrect in this case.

Cheers Phil

Please capitalize names properly.

Also tags should be in English, so Alan Maylor's shop should simply be shop=flooring. Never seem anyone comma separate Welsh before in a tag.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Rather than map the post office and as a semicolon separated amenity it is normal to map them as separate objects. The postbox should usually be a separate node outside.

LLeyn is an odd spelling for Llŷn, which is actually what got my attention.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Just wondering why you separated the trig point and the summit.

In reality they are a single object and should follow the OSM rule osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Cheers Phil

Hi
What does direction=200 mean on osm.org/node/5180229018 ?

Cheers Phil

Hi
This seems a very odd place for a doctors, a node in the middle of a pedestrian street in a park.

What are you trying to achieve?

Hi
This edit has gone a wrong. The website was correct and for some reason you removed the https://.
Just wondering why?

Thank you for your reply.

You say it looks good on the map, however there is no one map. OSM is a geographic database which is consumed and rendered in many different ways. If a way hasn't got a name then we do not make one up (or assign it one of the routes that follows that way.

A more specialised walking renderer, https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/52.67147/-2.54638 will show the names of route relations provided that they have a network tag, in this case network=lwn.

For example osm.org/way/38025209 is already part of The Shropshire Way, but doesn't have that name and all information needed is in the relation.

Hope this halps
Phil

Hi
Welcome to OSM and thank you for adding the Telford T50 route.

I see that you have correctly created a route relation, however the individual ways should not also be named Telford T50. It is perfectly fine for the individual ways to be unnamed.

Out of interest what sources are you using?

Cheers Phil

Hi
Not sure what you were trying to achieve here, but you seem to have put a large kink into the exit way. This is incorrect and the transition is smooth.

I have reverted this change.

Cheers Phil

Hi
I do not recall where this project was discussed with the UK community. I do not recall anything and cannot find anything on the mailing list.

In this change you have added turn restrictions. Turn restrictions should only be mapped where there is a legal restriction. In this case there are no restrictions so the restrictions should be removed unless you can show a source that I am not aware of.

You seem to have been making a very large number of these edits, which are also very unlikely to be legal restrictions.

Please discuss with the community before making any more such edits.

Cheers Phil