Hi
opening_date 2025-10
Was these upgrades ever completed?

<Gallic shrug>

I don't wish to "make friends" I want to improve the quality of the OSM database.

Someone who's been mapping since '07 should know they should be correcting their own errors.

Given the comments, I'm concerned about the quality of data in Scotland.

railway=station?uselang=en

"Map an unconnected node"

Please don't attach station nodes to the track. It's a hangover from when all tracks were only mapped as a single way. There is a concerted effort to detach them. It make the OSM database more accurate & allows the nodes to be more accurately positioned to avoid rendering clashes.
node/20798190/history/20#map=19/51.717331/-0.344960

Why have you removed landuse=residential from these houses?
way/110155754#map=18/51.346672/-2.303921

> it's for staff and signed in visitors only.

So what? It's still an entity in its own right. Add access=* to indicate who can shop there.

> Could map it separately however as a generally mapper from the public it's impossible to keep it up to date.

No. It's status is verifiable from the FHRS database. Giving the shop it own node & tags inside the building is still more accurate & detailed, even if the location within the building is rough guess.

I've started a conversation on Talk-GB.

Your actions exclude & obfuscate valid data.

Failing to give separate companies separate, named entities means that accurate data (such as a list of Tesco shops) can not be retrieved.

This is poor mapping.

> (needs both FHRS id and postcode to match).

Presuming FHRS's addresses are accurate is also poor mapping.

> "you can't go to the school and order some catering."

The tag gives no implication that that is the case.

It's disappointing to see another case where edits reduce the quality of the OSM database. Please pass this on to "the Edinburgh OSM meetup group".

You've still not corrected your duplication: way/465242150

> there is not a separate catering business that you could go to

Then why did you add contact details?

>instead it's an outside contractor

As a separate contractor it requires as separate FHRS.

> potentially as a ; separated list rather than having a separate node for the caterer.

But that doesn't name the catering contractor
The FHRS is assigned to the contractor, not the school.

>I see the tag craft=caterer being the base/office/van of a business that you could go to for eg outside catering, or other venue catering.

The caterer is contracted to multiple venues each with its own FHRS therefore requires a separate tag for each venue.

>The FHRS comparison does support having a list of FHRS:ids.

I don't know what you mean by that.

It's not correct because it's not open
railway=platform require area tag due to a bug in OSM-Carto. Reverting.

You've duplicated an existing FHRS:ID
way/465242150#map=18/51.397524/-2.342146
node/13438285783

Please remove your duplicate.

way/87245836/history/7

You've duplicated an existing, correct id

Please don't remove layer tags required for accurate mapping.
What was the "building issue" in this case

Please don't move paths when it's clearly the buildings which are inaccurately mapped.

Shouldn't delete name, fhrs or website. Prefix with disabled:*. They're useful for validation checks & future amendments..

Don't add duplicating tags

There is already a railway=station tag, please don't duplicate.

Thanks for the prompt reply
This may help:
barrier=*

You've connected the East end of the path to the Cotswold's relation, not the road.
You've not indicated how the path passes through the hedgerows (barrier)=*,

Are you sure the Western end doesn't meet the bridlepath, not the road?

What signage is there? if it's a PROW add these tags:
osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_Rights_of_Way

It's not disused!

Seeing that you've deleted it, I've no idea what you're talking about.