Wouldn't it be better to have not thrown away the history and address tags and mapped the market? Although I am not really sure what you mean by a market. The market being a large area in the city centre.

Surely it would have been better to improve the map by adding the other buildings that make up the terrace, as has been done the other side of Britton Street.

I am no sure what you mean by a market, but did you happen to get the name. It would be useful to add it, whatever it is.

Hi
Whilst banks closing is not unusual has it really been demolished? Chances are the building is in use for something else, or maybe empty awaiting a new tennant.

Whilst the tags associating it with a bank can be removed, the other tags (building, addr:* and urpn) still remain valid and should be retained.

Cheers Phil

Precisely what street level imagery are you using?

Are you sure about this?

The original postcode was surveyed using a printed reciept and matches that shown on FHRS and is points right at the garage if you type it into OSM search.

NSUL cannot be considered a valid source for armchair edits which break existing survey data.

I am reverting this edit.

Hi
You still are not quoting the sources you are using for these changesets or replied to previous comments.

Are you sure you have the change in the right place?

What evidence do you have that it is illegal to walk on these roads.

Pedestrians being prohibited is extremely rare in the UK and in such cases you will find signs such as osm.wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg. I do not recall such a sign here.

Cheers Phil

Except use of streetview is not allowed for OSM editing, this change needs to be reverted.

Again what sources are you using for these edits?

In this edit you have changed osm.org/way/117883015 from 30 mph to 40 mph which now contradicts signage visible in open sources.

Why have you made this change?

Cheers Phil

What is the source of this edit, it feels very unlikely that the speed limit would be increased here and contradicts available open sources?

What is the source of this apparently remote edit?

Cheers Phil

In some ways it is tagging for the renderer, but to avoid that you have to make a political decision as to which language should be used.

As a Welshman I am wondering why you chose Wales over Cymru, after all it was previously first.

The wiki should be taken with a large pinch of NaCl. It is intended to document how mappers map and not to dictate to mappers.

How did you decide that English should be the primary language in these areas?

How in a bilingual country did you decide that you removed the wrong name.

Where did you discuss these edits with the community?

Hi
These gardens are not just grass, they contain much more, outbuildings?

The are certainly not a poorly placed rectangle. Why are you making these poor quality inaccurate changes?

Hi
I am wondering what you are trying to achieve with these poorly draw landuse=grass areas? The area is certainly not grass, it is mostly arable farmland with wood and buildings. Some of the farmland is already mapped which you have simply made harder to determine.

Hi
This seems very unlikely. What evidence have you that this exists?

OSM is a map of the world as it exists, not a place to add fictional data.

Cheers Phil

> There are numerous uncopyrighted sources available all showing the same route.
I have not found one that has your level of detail, You haven't said which you used?

> "Proposals are un-verifiable and do not belong in OSM." .... In that case, surely the proposed tag as a whole shouldn't be recognised? Lots of other proposed schemes (even ones nowhere near as close to fruition as this) are mapped out in OSM data; eg. Lower Thames Crossing.
It could be argued that is of national importance, as was HS2.

> However this is the first I've heard that proposals shouldn't be mapped at all.
The wiki is very clear on highway=proposed.
"Note that generally, OpenStreetMap requires information to be verifiable on the ground. Proposed features that are not visible on the ground should therefore only be mapped in exceptional cases and after a discussion with the relevant OSM community, lest they might be deleted for lack of verifiability."

> It would've been useful for the NWRR route to be available in OSM data (should it be approved), but I suppose it isn't worth debating given it isn't even viewable on any standard map.
Rendering it would have been even more annoying to those who use the map in this area and still want to enjoythe rights of way in this unspoit quiet countryside before it is ruined.

Hi
I am concerned that you have deleted the existing rights of way from this development. Why?
Cheers Phil