I strongly disagree with your claim that people use bicycle=dismount "in most cases seems to be to fool cycle routers to include illegal routes".

Although some ambiguity exists in the use of the "bicycle" tag, there are well intentioned mappers using bicycle=dismount to reflect the subtleties of cyle routing, not for malicious purposes, as you claim. I find your summary of the community discussion surprising and I disagree with your conclusion.

It's a shame that you participate in a mapping community where you assume bad intentions in your fellow mappers and claim malice in their work.

You claim not to have reverted anything, but in changeset/179089114 I fixed various mistakes including removing "bicycle=no" signage where there is no clear indication that all bicycle use is forbidden.

Out of courtesy I communicated this on changeset/173513135 which introduced these mistakes. You then reverted my removal of bicycle=no without communicating that you had done so. Please avoid edit wars like this.

I recognise your point that bicycles must not be ridden on pavements (sidewalks), but you repeatedly ignore the suggestion that bicycle=dismount might work better for example on changeset/179461786

Instead of repeatedly stating the same point, I encourage you to carefully consider the points other people make, in this case either avoiding tagging sidewalks with bicycle=* or tagging them with bicycle=dismount.

I have already pointed you at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/i-have-a-problem-with-a-user-being-very-rigid-with-legal-interpretation-of-access-rules/139067/36 which you have characterised as "a single scofflaw cyclist who thinks cyclists ought to be allowed to ride on pavements" which seems like a bizarre interpretation of the detailed discussion involving many mappers.

You do a lot of good work improving the map, but it would be helpful to incorporate the community's suggestions into your mapping.

Thank you for all your helpful work improving the map. I notice you mistakenly tagged this shop as opening at 5pm, presumably 17:00 was a typo for 07:00, so I have fixed this in changeset/179768180

I see you have reverted my changes in changeset/179089114 without discussion. Why?

I notice you are tagging things as "bicycle=no" again.

The discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/i-have-a-problem-with-a-user-being-very-rigid-with-legal-interpretation-of-access-rules/139067/36 suggests bicycle=dismount would work better, although conscensus seems to be most pavements are best tagged without any bicycle=*.

What do you plan to do about this disagreement of approaches to mapping?

Thank you for the quick reply. If the footpath no longer physically exists then deleting it was the right thing to do.

Mentioning the physical removal of the footpath and change of ues from pub to house in the original changeset description would have been helpful, but the most helpful thing is that you have mapped what is on the ground.

Again, thank you.

Thank you for helping to improve the map.

Does the footpath you deleted at way/503381755/history physically exist? If so, it belongs on the map with suitable access=* tags specifying how it can be used according to the planning application.

The OpenStreetMap project maps what is on the ground and we do not delete things that exist.

Thank you for your helpful work improving the map. Might opening%20hours=closed?uselang=en-GB make more sense than the "opening_hours=off" here?

I have fixed various mistakes introduced by these changes in changeset/179089114

Although it's not documented on the Wiki, several mappers have used https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=aviary to map small aviaries as opposed to a large zoo=aviary.

There's also man_made=dovecote but I suspect that's not the right choice here.

Thank you for editing the map.

Are you sure there is a zoo at node/12520590340? Aerial photography suggests this is unlikely. Perhaps it is an aviary.

Also, please use the "name" tag correctly: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Thanks again, that's great.

Thank you for your quick reply @OpenCalle. I have updated the car park in changeset/177234642

Thank you for helping to improve the map.

I realise you did not add the name "Customers" to the car park at way/358703641 but you have added helpful information since.

I'm almost certain this name is wrong, and that "access=customers" would make more sense, but I notice you added "access=yes" in changeset/164627916, suggesting any member of the public can use it. Is there any time limit on how long visitors can stay?

Thank you for your helpful contribution to OpenStreetMap.

The opening hours to added to way/1465733332 as "Fri-Sun 7-11" aren't in the correct format described at opening%20hours=*

Is this club only open between 7pm and 11pm between Friday and Sunday or did you mean something else?

If I'm right, the correct format would be "Fr-Su 19:00-23:00".

Please don't take this as criticism: it's great that you have contributed to the map and I would like to help add to your improvements.

Thank you for adding this to the map - I never knew it was here!

Its Wikidata record suggests the bunker_type=pillbox tag might be suitable: does this seem correct to you?

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.