In this change you have helpfully added pavements alongside roads correctly tagged as footway=sidewalk.

However, you have not updated tags on the corresponding roads to sidewalk:*=separate as described on osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way

One example is your addition of way/1230085017 without updating way/168557745

Please revisit the changes you made and improve tagging on the roads for consistency.

Is the whole of this building "Haanbaagasuteki"? I see other restaurants such as node/5215406428 and node/13062175201 mapped as nodes within the building.

Why not do the same for this restaurant?

Thank you for replying.

Can you tell me more about the OSM project you participated in and share the instructions you received?

There are no specific guidelines for Manchester, but there is general advice that these changes do not follow: osm.wiki/Sidewalks

Are you willing to fix the mistakes you made, do you need more information, have any questions, or would you like me to fix things?

Thank you again for mapping this path and the other you added in changeset/175690317.

I don't know this part of Wirksworth well enough to have used these paths, but as mapped these paths are dead ends that don't connect to anything other than Spring Close (in this case) or the cemetery path (in the other case).

If these two paths are disconnected in this way on the ground, what you have mapped makes sense, but if not you might want to consider joining them to other features.

As ever, ask if you have any questions.

I have switched the "name" to "addr:housename" in way/292296184 and fixed a couple of mistakes moving a residential street and a railway line.

Please let me know if you see anything wrong with my change.

Thank you for your insightful reply.

I have contacted the mapper at changeset/131009801 and created a note for others to check.

Thank you for all your helpful mapping work.

I see you have tagged node/680120554 as a defibrilator but it still has amenity=telephone as a tag.

I assume this is no longer a usable public telephone as described in note/5083766.

I feel like we're talking past each other. I do not disagree with the law or your interpretation of it.

However, I disagree with your insistence that any approach to tagging the map other than yours has no validity.

The tags that mappers use are a matter of consensus and consistency as I have already stated. You repeatedly ignore this and fail to answer my questions.

If you are so sure that your approach makes sense, why do you refuse to discuss it with other mappers and why do you refuse to acknowledge the advice given in the two blocks you have received over the past week?

Thank you for all your helpful work on OpenStreetMap.

I notice node/680120554 is still tagged as "amenity=telephone" which seems unlikely given the other tags present.

Thank you for your helpful contributions to OpenStreetMap.

You have described these changes as "Updates" which is true, but makes it harder for reviewers to understand what you updated and why.

Please see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for good advice on how to communicate the changes you make to others.

Again, thank you for your good work.

That makes sense. Thank you for reminding me that we all have different mapping styles.

In case you don't know about it, HDYC is a useful tool for keeping track of discussions that haven't been replied to (amongst other things):
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=6397757&commented

You have cited the law several times in this and other discussions, but you haven't answered my question.

Your recent blocks at osm.org/user_blocks/19112 and osm.org/user_blocks/19125 have suggested you use the UK forum to discuss this. Can you point me at that discussion?

What consideration have you given to Richard's suggestion at changeset/175410402 that bicycle=dismount makes more sense in these situations than bicycle=no?

Please don't keep forcefully stating your case without listening to the other side, refusing to change your habits. Engage with the community and build consensus to improve the consistency of our shared map.

Thank you for your quick reply.

New mappers often make mistakes. I made many.

When you encounter such mistakes, it's helpful to leave a comment like this one to check what the mapper was trying to do and help them understand how to improve their contributions.

These changes revert the work of Dimasik007 in changeset/174904612

Did you consider contacting the mapper to understand why they believe construction has finished?

It can be quite disheartening for new mappers to discover their work has been reverted without discussion.

In the spirit of osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element I suggest it makes sense to only map Chorltonville once, not twice.

The feature already exists as way/1107039785 with identical tags to the new feature you added in this change.

I suggest either removing the new node you added, or perhaps tagging the node as the centrepoint of a relation including the existing way if that makes sense and is possible (I'm unsure).

What do you think?

I have added a note about this area to note/5082201 for someone who cares about the quality of the map to investigate.

I notice you have added "bicycle=no" to way/1453364281 - can you point me at the discussion that concludes this is the best way to map pavements beside roads? It's important to reach a community conscensus on the best way to map together.

It's good that we're having this conversation, but this changeset isn't the best place for it. As SomeoneElse suggests on osm.org/user_blocks/19111 I encourage you to use the forum to discover conscensus and reconcile tagging disagreements.

Thank you for all your good work improving the map.

You have mapped way/172193768, way/171938146, and way/4956905 as "sidewalk=separate" but none of these roads have sidewalks mapped separately. As far as I can tell, only Moston Lane does.

I assume this is a mistake. Will you be able to fix all the streets incorrectly mapped with the "sidewalk=separate" tag?

The tags were added by mistake and have since been fixed in changeset/175477758 and changeset/175510217.