I appreciate your detailed feedback and the concerns you've raised. I understand your points regarding the deletion of ways and the need for clarity. Allow me to explain my actions.

In making changes, my main aim was to enhance the accuracy of our mapping system. My decision to remove some of the ways was not arbitrary, but rather a strategy aimed at enabling the parking polygons to include the access ways. This was intended to provide a more comprehensive representation of the parking area.

I now realize that my communication should have been more explicit about this plan. A more collaborative dialogue prior to implementing these changes could have avoided any misunderstanding. In retrospect, your insights would have been invaluable in shaping these decisions.

Regarding the disabled parking spaces, I want to acknowledge the importance of accurate representation. I understand that you may not have been able to survey the entire lot, which might have impacted the visibility of these spaces. It was not my intention to dismiss your surveying efforts, and I apologize if it seemed that way.

I recognize the complexities of defining the boundaries of the entire car park, and I respect your approach of tagging individual bays due to their clear delineation. With your feedback, I have a better understanding of the reasoning behind this approach.

Moving forward, I suggest we review the tagging of these parking bays collaboratively. This will involve considering the new schema, your initial survey, any additional information we've gathered since then, and the changes I made. By working together, we can maintain the accuracy of our mapping system.

Once again, I apologize for any confusion or frustration my actions may have caused. Your commitment to our work is highly valued, and I look forward to working more collaboratively with you in the future.