Hi, this edit has gone very very wrong.

We have been looking at Facebook AI over the last few days and it is certainly not ready to be used. You have clearly not understood what it has detected.

For example osm.org/way/760814325 is a hedge as is osm.org/way/760814327 and quite a few others.

Way osm.org/way/760814329 is just a tramline left by a tractor, not a track.

This data you have used is too unreliable and this changeset should be reverted.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edits has lost quite a lot of detail. Ashby Castle was mapped quite well, as a series of walls. Replacing them with a building doesn't really do it justice.
Have you actually been there?

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has gone a little wrong.

This is not a residential road, no houses facing it, no proper junction with give way markings, low quality surface and it is very unlikely that a single residential road.

The position of cars suggest it is a car park.

Cheers Phil

Thank you

This is a new development, it was only built about a year ago, street names do not change and it is fairly obvious that the original mapper had the location slightly wrong. Maybe he only knew it was just off the roundabout by the Shrewsbury Club.

It is 100% Coracle Close

Cheers Phil

Hi, I would be very interested to see the evidence you used to map way osm.org/way/50640363 :)

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has gone a little wrong, you have deleted and not replaced surveyed imformation.

Most importantly you have simply deleted Coracle Close, which had been added by a local mapper by going and having a look.

Whilst it wasn't perfectly mapped, it was not wrong and was added before aerial imagery was available. It was good enough to find Coracle Close. You have now thrown that information away, by deleting rather than improving on it.

Cheers Phil

Mike, this area is available in Bing Streetside which we are allowed to use.

I can see no evidence to support tagging these roads as private. In fact a right of way sign can be seen on Elstree Hill. The roads a unsurfaced which suggests Unadopted but access in OSM is legal, not ownership.

Using the available evidence I suggest that the access tags be removed and surface tags added.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM. In OSM we add things that exist, you have added a historic residential road that does not exist and passes through buildings. I have therefore removed it.

Hi, this edit has broken a lot of routing around the city.

You have added barrier=kerb to crossing nodes, which are in the middle of the road and hence blocking routing along these roads. Please could you explain why you did this, iD is not suggesting such edits to me?

Barrier=kerb should obviously be at the edge of a road, please take care when making automated edits suggested by iD.

Cheers Phil

HI, I think this edit has gone a little wrong as in this changeset you have changed several cycleways (which are part of a long distance cycleroute) to footways. Please could you explain your logic for these changes?
Cheers Phil

What is the source of this edit, the streets you have added do not appear on bing (which you have claimed) or any other available imagery. Also names you have used and the vast spread of your edits suggest it is not local knowledge.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this and some of your other edits have gone a little wrong.

In OSM coastline is mapped as the mean high watermark which you have changed.

I have reverted this, and your other coastline edits to restore this.

What you have done is called tagging for the renderer, and whilst I will agree the standard renderer is not working in an ideal manner, we should not change the database to fix these problems. Other renders such as cyclelayer and humanitarian layer do work. As does https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html which is a style created by a very active member of the UK community.

I realise that I have lost a few of your other changes, which I will restore later (it was getting late), sorry.

It is useful when editing to keep to a similar feature, particularly when editing coastline.

Cheers Phil

I am not sure I agree with the wiki on this, barriers need to be mapped in a way that is useful. For example a wall and a cattle grid are completely different objects.
The gate you added was visible as a gate on imagery however what was not visible was a second gate at the other end.
The area you have mapped is in fact a service yard where forklifts may operate, it is not an entry/exit road.

I have tagged this as private which will allow deliveries to the yard but will not route visitors to the shop by that route.

Cheers Phil

@Lafammm
The normal rules of the road apply on public land where the public is invited, hence ports, supermarket car parks. You could be prosecuted for drunk driving, not wearing a seatbelt or using a mobile phone.
Technically you could be prosecuted for holding a mobile phone if you use it to make a contactless payment at a drive-through or on the M6 Toll.

C'est la France, pourquoi changez-vous la balise wikipedia en anglais pour Lidl et E Leclerc?

Reverted Waitrose back to convienience. Mapper has not responded to previous comments

Are you sure that what you have mapped for osm.org/way/753762064 is the walked line? The river looks rather too big to jump or rock hop over.
This may be the definitive line, when the historic 1:25k maps was published there was obviously a bridge at the crossing point however this seems to have long gone.

In OSM we aim to map the line as it exists on the ground, this produces a far more useful map for walkers and looking at the imagery it is clear I would cross the road bridge and find a route from there.

There is some discussion within the community of how to map definitive lines, however these would not be mapped as a footway or render on the standard map.

Mapping this river crossing as a footway IMHO is rather reckless and I am hiding it pending your comments.

Cheers Phil

Apologies accepted.

I did spot that you had also added some footpaths, which I did not revert and are very useful features. Please continue adding things to the map.

Cheers Phil

Hi, thank you for your edit, Just one small thing, if a restaurant has closed it is best if it doesn't appear on the map as simply unnanmed.

The consensus within the uk community is to change the tag to disused:amenity=restaurant.

In iD you will need to go into all tags and edit amenity manually.

Cheers Phil