Thank you for improving the map.

I notice you edited node/4134208704, way/708996075, and way/708996079 that were already mapped.

This means there are three different things here named "Bear Pit" which seems against the spirit of osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element - how might we resolve this?

Hi, I suspect the "building=unspecified_building_typem" tag on way/1501457899 is a mistake - what tag did you mean to use here?

Thank you for all your good work improving the map.

In the spirit of osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only I have tagged four lime kilns you added with "name=Lime Kiln" in changeset/181325145. Please let me know if you think I haven't tagged these features appropriately.

Thank you for the prompt reply. I have made further improvements in changeset/181130646.

In future, when you add streets to the map, look at the e7xisting features nearby and fix them if necessary.

In this case, you have added two streets in the middle of a construction area: it's fairly clear that construction has finished but you didn't update that.

Again, thank you. :)

I've not walked along the footpath you added, but I think I've seen a "Public footpath" sign here when driving past.

Would "designation=public_footpath" and "foot=designated" make sense on way/1495135001?

Thank you for your work improving the map

There are a lot of changes here, and the two word description "Matlock Bath" isn't very helpful: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

From a quick review, I notice you added way/1495878991 which seems incorrectly tagged given building=terrace although I realise it's consisntent with the other terraced houses nearby.

As ever, thank you for your good work improving the map.

Please use helpful changeset descriptions to help reviewers understand your work. The one word "farm" is not enough.

I have mentioned this before at changeset/173146640, changeset/174989190, and changeset/174989830.

You have not responded to my previous comments asking for more helpful descriptions and continue this bad habit. Can you explain why?

Are you sure "highway=service" makes sense for the two roads you added? When I last visited this area, this area was a building site for a new housing estate, so I suspect "highway=residential" makes more sense. What do you think?

As ever, thank you for improving the map. I think the car park you added at way/1493376196 might be a customer car park for way/595172895 - it's currently just tagged as "amenity=parking".

Hi, thank you for all your good work on improving the map.

I have combined two car parks here that were way/589290079 and way/1250879960 in changeset/180854568 as I believe they are the same feature, not two separate car parks. Please let me know if I made any mistakes.

Thank you for the quick reply. I think you're saying that you intended to remove things that don't belong on the map.

You also added a gate at node/13609838686/history which has since been removed and a service road at way/1484333061/history so your description seems inaccurate.

Please consider separating different types of change into different changesets to make your edits easier to review.

Thank you for the quick reply.

Lots of names appear in OS OpenMap Local that nobody uses any more, so they don't belong on a contemporary map - https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ exists for such things.

If you really want to keep it on the map, I suggest using old_name=* rather than adding a note to explain the odd use of "name".

Thank you for your diligent work adding detail to the map.

Have you heard people call this area "Sandbed" recently? I've never encountered the name and I'm unsure if it's used today, in which case it doesn't belong on the map.

This changeset contains a huge number of modifications, making it hard to review. In future, would you consider making smaller changes, with each change focusing on a particular theme, to make review easier?

Again, thank you for your work on the map, but it's hard for me to understand what you have done here. The description "minors" says nothing useful, but it looks like you have modified various different types of feature, but I don't know why.

Thank you for your work improving the map.

You have described this change as "blank points + lines" but I don't understand what that means.

Looking at the changes you made, I struggle to understand what you were trying to do or what the purpose of these changes is. I would appreciate it if you could provide more detail about what you did.

You have tagged way/790278404 as designation=public_bridleway and foot=designated while retaining access=private. Is this way a private driveway, public bridleway, or something else?

Thank you for helping to improve the map.

"7 Kw" seems like an incorrect name for node/9380611791 given osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only - amenity=charging%20station suggests socket:type:output might work better for this purpose.

@rskedgell's suggestion of only tagging bicycle=no where it is explicitly signed, and adding additional tags to describe the signage, seems like the best approach here instead of tagging every sidewalk as bicycle=no.

I would be interested to see examples of cycle routers sending cyclists along sidewalks: so far none have been provided to support the case that tagging every sidewalk as bicycle=no achieves anything useful.

You have described these changes as "cycle access" but as far as I can tell you have added 20mph speed restrictions to various roads.

Firstly, it helps other mappers review your changes when you describe them accurately.

Secondly, for sizeable changes like this it helps to describe what you have done, and the reasons behind it, in more detail as described in osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments