Reverted my duplication

Why have you changed this?

It was accurately surveyed and mapped describing the building type along with its current usage. The type is obvious to anyone who surveys it.

By armchairing away those tags, you have lost important surveyed information and left it as it may as well be a modern concrete monstrosity.

I am reverting this change.

In the UK, where we do not have anti-pedestrian jaywalking laws the the consensus is the map sidewalks as part of the road using sidewalk=left/right/both.

Where there is a separation it important to provide good connectivity.

Some odd routing otherwise occurs osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=52.89667%2C-2.67117%3B52.89739%2C-2.67301

Cheers Phil

Thank you

Hi
I am not sure this change from doctors to clinic. In UK terms this is certainly a doctors (doctors surgery). What prompted you to make this change?

I am aware that some recent changes to the clinic wiki page are confusing, but it does not fit the UK consensus.

Clinic is something that varies greatly between different healthcare systems. 10 doctors is certainly not a large number in a public health system as in the UK.

The wiki is supposed to document how mappers map, not define tagging especially as in this case it changes 13 years of tag usage.

I would suggest this is returned to doctors.

Cheers Phil

Just wondering why you have joined the boundary of the business park to the centreline of the restricted byway, which is outside the fence?

Cheers Phil

way/1004645242 can hardly be described as farmland, scrub going back to nature is the best definition I can come up with since I walk it regularly.

Cheers Phil

I am concerned that you are adding a large number of postcodes on residential properties. If there was an open usable source they would have been added a long time ago so wondering what source you are using?

Cheers Phil

How exactly is deleting other mappers work improving the map. Hedges are important features.

Cheers Phil

I have also spotted that your changes have misaligned this area.
Wem has been very carefully mapped and aligned over the last 10 years, and has been a testbed for new ideas. It has been very carefully aligned, you must never assume that arial imagery is correctly aligned, it rarely is.
We have land registry cadastral parcels available under imagery which should be used to align imagery before use. You do need to keep doing this, the calibration is often only valid for 100m or so.

Also please avoid deleting and redrawing objects as it destroys history and is disrespectful to the work of other mappers.

Cheers Phil

Following on from the last part

You should not blindly believe what iD suggests, it is not authoritative. OSM tagging is built through consensus and usage. As you can see from this edit it has got the co-op badly wrong.

Cheers Phil

This edit has gone rather wrong. You have changed Wem Co-op from Mid Counties to the Co-operative group which is clearly an error. The tags had been carefully selected. Why did you change this?

You have also deleted the service area on Aston Road Business Park, again why. The tagging was correct.

1004645243 is not farmland, it is a network rail storage area which was tagged as landuse=railway which again was correct.

1004645242 is just empty wasteland, possibly scrub. It is again not farmland.

Cheers Phil

You should not blindly believe

Hi, what source are you using for postcodes?

We do not have a practical open source that can be simply linked to addresses?

Cheers Phil

Thank you for your edit, the name did need updating, I had missed that one.

However I am wondering why you changed the informative building=retail to a very generic building=yes? That is throwing away surveyed data. Yes is an indication that either the mapper didn't know and an indication that a survey is needed.

Also Premier is a franchise, they are not the operators, this is an independent shop.

Cheers Phil

What oneway system?

Why have you moved the location of the Wem node?

The position is chosen so that if someone requests they satnav to take them to Wem, they end up in a sensible place (such as the High Street). The middle of the school field is not sensible.

Cheers Phil

Thank you for spotting this. They are land registry cadestral parcels which I was using and intended to remove. Missed these but gone now.

Cheers Phil

This edit has gone a bit wrong.

way/204021859 is certainly not a building, it was correctly tagged as a yard, and the name was and still is on the relation. It is certainly not Furrows.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit seems a bit strange. What issues were you trying to fix?

You have removed the detailed building=roof and replaced it with building=yes, which you only use if you don't know,

You have removed the highway=service and area tags from the forecourt and transferred the amenity=fuel tag to it, but have left behind important associated tags about fuels sold (and not sold) on the building.

Cheers Phil

Hi, track describes this better than a footway. Also as this is a restricted byway then it is a bit wider than a footpath. I would have left this as a track, however it could be describes a bridleway.

Cheers Phil