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

I strongly disagree with your claim that people use bicycle=dismount "in most cases seems to be to fool cycle routers to include illegal routes".

Although some ambiguity exists in the use of the "bicycle" tag, there are well intentioned mappers using bicycle=dismount to reflect the subtleties of cyle routing, not for malicious purposes, as you claim. I find your summary of the community discussion surprising and I disagree with your conclusion.

It's a shame that you participate in a mapping community where you assume bad intentions in your fellow mappers and claim malice in their work.

You claim not to have reverted anything, but in changeset/179089114 I fixed various mistakes including removing "bicycle=no" signage where there is no clear indication that all bicycle use is forbidden.

Out of courtesy I communicated this on changeset/173513135 which introduced these mistakes. You then reverted my removal of bicycle=no without communicating that you had done so. Please avoid edit wars like this.

I recognise your point that bicycles must not be ridden on pavements (sidewalks), but you repeatedly ignore the suggestion that bicycle=dismount might work better for example on changeset/179461786

Instead of repeatedly stating the same point, I encourage you to carefully consider the points other people make, in this case either avoiding tagging sidewalks with bicycle=* or tagging them with bicycle=dismount.

I have already pointed you at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/i-have-a-problem-with-a-user-being-very-rigid-with-legal-interpretation-of-access-rules/139067/36 which you have characterised as "a single scofflaw cyclist who thinks cyclists ought to be allowed to ride on pavements" which seems like a bizarre interpretation of the detailed discussion involving many mappers.

You do a lot of good work improving the map, but it would be helpful to incorporate the community's suggestions into your mapping.

Thank you for all your helpful work improving the map. I notice you mistakenly tagged this shop as opening at 5pm, presumably 17:00 was a typo for 07:00, so I have fixed this in changeset/179768180

I see you have reverted my changes in changeset/179089114 without discussion. Why?

I notice you are tagging things as "bicycle=no" again.

The discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/i-have-a-problem-with-a-user-being-very-rigid-with-legal-interpretation-of-access-rules/139067/36 suggests bicycle=dismount would work better, although conscensus seems to be most pavements are best tagged without any bicycle=*.

What do you plan to do about this disagreement of approaches to mapping?

Thank you for the quick reply. If the footpath no longer physically exists then deleting it was the right thing to do.

Mentioning the physical removal of the footpath and change of ues from pub to house in the original changeset description would have been helpful, but the most helpful thing is that you have mapped what is on the ground.

Again, thank you.

Thank you for helping to improve the map.

Does the footpath you deleted at way/503381755/history physically exist? If so, it belongs on the map with suitable access=* tags specifying how it can be used according to the planning application.

The OpenStreetMap project maps what is on the ground and we do not delete things that exist.

Thank you for your helpful work improving the map. Might opening%20hours=closed?uselang=en-GB make more sense than the "opening_hours=off" here?

I have fixed various mistakes introduced by these changes in changeset/179089114

Although it's not documented on the Wiki, several mappers have used https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=aviary to map small aviaries as opposed to a large zoo=aviary.

There's also man_made=dovecote but I suspect that's not the right choice here.