Thank you for the quick reply and helpful explanation.

It's a good idea to mention things like this when closing notes. The single word "Updated" communicates little. Ideally, refer to any relevant changesets.

Did you check this yourself in person or did you make this change based only on note/2985193 that I opened?

When editing the map it's always helpful to explain your changes and why you made them with more detail than "Update Business".

Thank you for fixing this in changeset/186864304

Thank you for helping to improve the map. Did you intend to add "Quixhill Lane" as the name of way/1545504347 or is this a mistake?

Thank you, are you sure this is mapped in exactly the right location?

Thank you for your helpful work adding details to these bus stops. I have removed the "naptan:verified=no" tag from some of them as I know they exist in the locations mapped.

Thank you for reminding me that I had mentioned this before: in future I will check more carefully to avoid mentioning the same thing more than once.

I have removed the tag in changeset/186356023

If you have checked these bus stops and they physically exist, you can remove the "naptan:verified" tag or set its value to "yes" as described at naptan:verified=*

Thank you for your continued work improving the map.

You seem unsure of these changes, so adding a "fixme" as you have done is helpful, but did you also consider discussing this on changeset/170319460 with the mapper who added the "Featherbed Moss" name less than a year ago?

Thank you for adding this path. Unfortunately you have added it in the wrong place. There is a path between Haw Clough Lane and Bunkers, but it runs next to Morley cottage.

Having things missing from the map seems better than having confusing, incorrect details, so I have deleted this path in changeset/183199493.

Thank you for all your helpful mapping work: hopefully someone will add this path in its correct location before long.

I see you have fixed this in changeset/183038389 - thank you!

Thank you for all the work you do improving the map.

This changeset added a sidewalk way/1281142693 alongside Walpole Terrace way/4385605.

Walpole Terrace is tagged as "sidewalk=both" but now that you have mapped both sidewalks separately it needs to be "sidewalk:both=separate" as described at osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way.

Also it looks like you have not mapped any crossing which might lead to worse routing than if the sidewalks were not mapped separately.

Again, thank you for your work. Please take care to think of the consequences for existing features on the map when adding new features.

It briefly crossed my mind that perhaps there was another version of billiards I had never heard of, and I casually wondered how it might work, but it wasn't to be :)

As ever, thank you for your helpful work improving the map. This changeset added "food:dogs=£2.75" which seems like an unusual tag, but I know this pub is dog friendly so it doesn't seem unreasonable.

In changeset/182459059 @mueschel decided to delete this tag without discussion because "things like this happen accidentially just too often to write messages to everybody" so I thought I would check with you.

Okay, I think you're saying I correctly guessed that "food:dogs" is the "copy and paste error" I asked about, although you haven't explicitly stated this.

I know this pub is dog friendly and sells dog snacks, so maybe the tag was intended to convey that. However, https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe:united-kingdom/keys/food:dogs shows this tag used nowhere else so perhaps it is a mistake.

Did you consider asking @SomeoneElse, who added this recently in changeset/182079192, what the tag was supposed to mean? I realise you might have already discussed it and I don't know about this.

What is the "copy and paste error" you removed? As far as I can tell you only removed "food:dogs=£2.75" which seems like a useful tag to me, not a copy and paste error.

Thank you for your helpful work improving OpenStreetMap. I suspect way/976487563 and way/976487564 are incorrectly tagged as historic=fort. Given their location perhaps bunker_type=pillbox would describe them better. What do you think?

Thank you for fixing these mistakes that were introduced in changeset/171889634.

That change introduced several other mistakes like this which I have fixed in changeset/182620552.

I have fixed these mistakes in changeset/182620552

I think you're right that it's a caterer rather than a cafe: I don't recall it opening regularly or often.