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.

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.