> 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.

Do not put the stations name onto platforms. Platforms don't have names.The stations name is correctly tagged on the railway=station node.

Do not convert closed polygon platforms to platform_edge. There is no requirement for it. It adds no additional quality to the OSM database. All required data can be added to closed polygon platforms.

Instead of each railway=platform object having it's own ref tag you've now made it more inaccurate by combining them, such as
relation/20189592 (ref=10a;10b;11a;11b).

Not only have you buried the route relations into child relations making it more difficult to comprehend & edit, but you've also combined them all into one parent relation, representing multiple platforms (ie ref=10a;10b;11a;11b.) whereas before they were assigned to their individual relevant platform.

Changing ref to local_ref is pointless. There is no difference.

relation/19877920

Removed duplicating tags that are already on the railway=station node.

node/6402222390/history

This, & other stations, are correctly tagged.

Could you expand on what edits you've made & what you mean by "as a curiosity to see how some UK tagging would compare to what I'm used to elsewhere"

A playground is not an exclave of a park. Please refrain from creating unnecessary relations.
relation/19757766/history/1