Thank you for adding helpful detail to the map.

However, there's a fair amount of change here, and I'm fairly sure some of it is wrong.

You have changed the speed limit for the bridge over the canal at way/8549230 from 20mph to 30mph. I'm fairly sure the speed limit signs are on the south side of the bridge, so the old value is correct.

You have tagged way/316893046 as a 20mph street citing a "Sign at south". I'm fairly sure there is no speed limit sign on what is effectively a parking aisle.

Thank you for all your helpful work on OpenStreetMap.

You have described these changes as "speed limits" but they include much more than that: you have also tagged a few footways as "bicycle=no".

Please describe your changes accurately to help communicate with other mappers: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thank you for all your helpful work on OpenStreetMap. You have made several edits recently with the identical description "minor fixes".

It would be very helpful for other mappers if you could describe what these fixes involve and why they make sense: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thank you for all your helpful work improving the map.

This hotel was already mapped at way/689008682 before you added it agin.

Please try to avoid adding duplicate features to the map: osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Thank you for your helpful work improving the map.

I notice you have tagged two ways for Briscoe Lane in this change as "sidewalk:both:surface=traffic_island" which seems odd as "traffic_island" seems like a confusing value for a "surface" to me.

Is this a mistake or does the value have some meaning I haven't worked out?

The ways are way/1424065428 and way/697319897

Thank you, I hadn't noticed that. I'll ask the mapper who originally added them.

Thank you for your helpful work improving the map.

I notice you have tagged both the ways in this change as "sidewalk:both:surface=traffic_island" which seems odd as "traffic_island" seems like a confusing value for a "surface" to me.

Is this a mistake or does the value have some meaning I haven't worked out?

I have reverted this in changeset/172205898 as all your contributions to OpenStreetMap make no sense.

OpenStreetMap is a map of the real world, not for adding things you have imagined.

Are you sure it makes sense to use what looks like a Welsh name for a park in England?

Regardless of any old name this place might have, it's known nowadays as "Gorse Hall".

Would you object to me reverting your change?

As ever, thank you for your helpful work on OpenStreetMap.

When mapping sidewalks separately, as you have done here with way/1423550567 it helps routers if you note this on the street, in this case way/82541916 and way/79699823 which have "sidewalk=both" and "sidewalk=right" where "sidewalk:both=separate" and "sidewalk:right=separate" would be more descriptive.

osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way has more information about this.

Thank you for these helpful improvements to OpenStreetMap.

I note you mention that you used Royal Mail's Web site to discover postcodes. In future, please try to avoid using copyrighted information when mapping.

osm.wiki/Postal_codes_in_the_United_Kingdom lists some sources of postcode information that have licences that make them suitable for inclusion.

Thank you, rskedgell. It's great to see you looking after the map, unlike the clumsy Meta / Facebook employees who don't seem to care.

Thank you again for your recent helpful fixes and all your good work on the map.

Thank you again for your helpful work improving the map.

From having walked here a few years ago, I believe the gate node/1840386735 on the public footpath at way/173197743#map=18/53.094425/-1.590365 is a kissing gate.

The new gate you have added at node/13049587407 does not form part of any footpath.

You will have visited here more recently than me, but does it make sense to have both these gates on the map?

I hope you find this comment helpful.

Thank you for your helpful work improving the map.

If the gate at node/4192178425 is permanently locked, does that mean there is no way to walk between the track to the north at way/419034700 and the footpath to the south at way/22956885 or is there a stile or something else nearby that hasn't been mapped yet?

Thank you for replying and fixing that so quickly :)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for your good work improving the map.

I notice the "opening_hours" on Royton Leisure Centre at node/10622234073 looks like it's missing a "0" on the end: "08:00-17:0" probably should be "08:00-17:00" but let me know if I've jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Thank you for confirming: Web sites often contain outdated or incorrect information, so I'm sure that what you surveyed in person will be more accurate.

Thank you for fixing this and for all your good work improving the map.

Are you sure the cafe opens at 6am as tagged in "opening_hours" on node/4560935418? Its Web site at https://www.lu-ma.co.uk/ suggests it opens at 8am.

You have tagged Park Lane with "sidewalk=both" in this change, but for most, perhaps all, its length "sidewalk=none" seems more accurate.