There is no Burger King in the middle of a housing estate, adding misleading objects can damage the reputation of OSM.

Please only add what exists in real life.

Hi, welcome to OSM. In OSM we map what exists on the ground. Changing a house that another mapper had mapped correctly, to some thing it is not is considered vandalism.

I am reverting both of your changesets.

Hi Joshua
This edit looks a bit odd, have these barriers been removed and there is no longer a height restriction here?
Cheers Phil

Spam removed, I doubt your business is in the middle of the road. It needs to be verifiable and location does not match address on website.

Hi, not sure if you are still active but some of your tags are causing issues and confusion to map users.
For example you have tagged Friars Close with motor_vehicle=no, this seems unlikely as it would prevent residents reaching their properties. What was the source of this tagging?
Cheers Phil

I should also add that the speed limit will be either 20mph or 30mph, it is certainly not 30kph. Also a speed limit very odd thing to add to a road in the same changeset that you have added motor_vehicle=no,
Cheers Phil

Hi Kaylan
I would think so, if motor vehicles were not allowed people would not be able to reach their houses.
Also looking at other roads mapped as access=private the tag does not make sense, For example Hall Orchard leads to a public footpath, indicating it as a minimum a right of way on foot. Also Windy Arbour is a public footpath, again making the access=private tag wrong.
Cheers Phil

Hi Tony
Thank you for your useful edit.

Rather than add a second top level tag to an objects like this it is often better to add a second simple post office node within the building.

This allows for different opening hours and makes it far easier to find the object they are interested in.

In this case I would have put the costcutter tags on the building, and added a separate post office tag.

HTH Phil

The private tagging of this and other roads in Cheadle goes back a long way, all were added by one mapper who has not been active for 5 years.
Private access does seem a bit odd, and it was added with no explanation.
Will add some notes to see if a passing mapper, maybe me, can see any actual evidence for these tags.
Cheers Phil

Sorry oneway arrows are here https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=c9193494-9048-44b4-9920-863c5674bf45&cp=51.461758802222164~-2.5236010587254896&lvl=19&dir=0&pi=12.94129&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027&setMkt=en-US

Looking at the signage on bing streetside, there is no oneway here.
There are no entry signs, which means you cannot enter from Two Mile Hill Road. This situation could simply be mapped using turn restrictions.

For Kingsway Avenue to actually be oneway there would need to be blue signs with white arrows, which are not present here.

Hi, this edit has gone a little wrong.

The car rental is already mapped and is in reality some distance from where you have placed it. Please take more care to check for existing features and when you add them to position them accurately.

I have removed this erroneous addition.

Cheers Phil

Hi, I am sure it is a mistake but please could you keep you changesets to sensible areas.

This one should have been split as the box extends from Norfolk to the Highlands and therefore covers most of the UK.

This makes it very difficult for mappers to see what as changed and where.

Cheers Phil

There is a footpath sign visible on streetside, maybe a fp ref visible meaning in this case ref was the correct tag to use.

Hi
Welcome to OSM, thank you for your edit.

A couple of points to note:
1. Please keep your edits to sensible areas, this changeset covers both West Wales and Lincolnshire making it difficult for mappers to determine what has changed.
2. The highway tag is intended to indicate the physical characteristic of the way.
You have changed way/160673089 from a service road to a footway and tagged it as motor vehicle=yes which does not make sense. It appears to be an access road to a farm, so service is the correct highway type. If it is a PROW, then add designation=public_footpath foot=designated tags. Your changes will have prevented usage by delivery drivers, or health workers who need to access the farm using motor vehicles.
Hope this is clear, if you have any questions please ask.
Cheers Phil

Rick
In your comments you mention 'the system' and 'we'. Please coul you be more specific?

These comments suggest that you should be following osm.wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

There is nothing in your profile suggeting you are anything other than a hobby mapper.

Cheers Phil

Hi Dave
The specific problem was caused by way/329362014
The usual tag for footway which is a public right of way is desgnated in England and Wales, but OSM is an international project so we cannot simply assume this to be the worldwide view.

Also many footpaths, will be =yes, particularly those in urban areas.
The specic problems with this change were the removal of tags from bridleways.

The size of this edit, you changed 699 ways, suggests you could not possibly have looked at them all and this edit would have fallen under the automated editing policy and should have been discussed with the community
See osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Cheers Phil

Hi Dave
In the case of footways the implied tag is yes, meaning it is allowed. You also removed designated which means it is a legal right of way. This is important for many mappers to be able to see in the database.
You also removed access tags from bridleways, which is a bit of a GB centric idea. Many routers will not allow foot or bicycle access unless explicitly tagged. Your changes came to our attention due to failing to route a walker along a bridleway which you had removed the access tags from.
If you need further clarification please ask.

Cheers Phil

There is an exiting rights of way network mapped in this area. As I can find diversion orders for these then I can only assume they still exist.

Therefore there should be connecting nodes where your new highway=construction crosses them.

Your editor should have given you warnings of crossing ways.

Cheers Phil

See also comments made in changeset/76133401