It was built - in that it was not naturally occurring and was constructed by humans - and is tagged as ruined in that the original construction is now in ruins. It is part of a larger ruined ancient construction so I suppose it depends on the definition of what constitutes “building”.
Best regards,
Andy

Hi it would seem that while natural=scrub renders it does not render if the polygon is tagged with landcover=scrub also (or man_made=clearcut), only if the natural=scrub is standalone. Please can you check this and modify your edits accordingly. Cheers.

Hi Please see reply comment on C/S 60102631. Applies here too.

Yeah well at least it rendered before you altered it to different tags. What's the point of changing tags to prevent the polygon from rendering at all? iD allows entering of the tag landuse=scrub and OSM Mapnik then renders it which is the point of "improving the map". I feel we shouldn't let pendantry over specific tags reduce the usability and visibility of map features.

as an aside this feature was marked as a unclassified road on the OS 1:25k 1st Series 1937 Map.

highway=footway is unsuitable because it isn't a designated footway any more than the rest of the fields which the feature crosses. The feature is similar in nature to a classic holloway or sunken lane. For examples of similar features please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunken_lane.

re Comment from Richard. That seems spot on - it is indeed a historic highway but not a highway currently. I'll amend the tagging. Cheers.

Less common it may be but is it more appropriate in this case? I feel that the highway=historic tag *is* more appropriate as this is what this road used to be. A road. A highway. Not a path or a way.

No that is not what I meant - it *could* be used for walking down but is unsuitable for vehicles or horses but there are no rights of access. This was originally an old holloway road - hence the historic tag.

It means it used to be a track road in the past, with a ford across the stream, but isn't any more having fallen into disuse for general traffic and now being sited on private land. The route could still be used for foot traffic but has restricted access.

NO they are not - A tidal flat is the middle part of a tidal basin, below the vegetation-supporting salt marsh and the low-tide mark.
These areas are beaches - a pebbly or sandy shore, especially by the sea between high- and low-water marks. Many even are named as such.
Please correct your errors.

Hi. Please see area around SJ55471 24483. Marked as Roman Road (Course of) on OS Map, northern section curves to the west near Moston Grange and follows the alignment of the unclassified road heading towards the A49 where it passes through the modern cutting.
This has been constructed at a naturally low saddle on the ridge and even without the modern cutting would have been a preferable place for the Roman road to traverse this obstacle.
Indeed the OS map records this to pass over the hill at this point, pre-dynamite or otherwise, continuing North-west and then North aligning with as section
of the B5065 where it meets the A49, approaching Prees. I've edited the relation to reflect this and added some ways along this alignment as I've only just found this source, so your comment has proved useful in prompting this. Thanks.
There is a recorded Roman settlement or posting station west of Harcourt Farm near this road's alignment. The southern end of the line marked as Roman Road (Course of) by OS is directly aligned with a section of the B5063, which in turn is marked as Roman Road (course of) on the OS 1:25k 1st Series 1937-61 Map
running south into Shawbury, passing Criftin Coppice and this alignment continues south of Shawbury on the unclassified road to Poynton Grange and by continuation of this alignment across level fields towards Roden. In view of the fact I cannot confirm from available sources that the stretch
from Poynton Grange to Roden lies in the exact position of the way - alignment may be off a little - I'll add "conjectural=yes" to the relation.
If OSM was an inappropriate place for this information, why do we have tags for historical and archaeological features, including "site_types"
such as "roman_road"?
Clearly this information is of value to be recorded here, and you are incorrect.
Finally I am unsure why you felt it appropriate to conclude your comments with an insult.

If I remember correctly at some point iD was not showing roundabouts as oneway unless they were tagged as such. I did change a few tags to reflect this as clearly roundabouts are not two-way flows but clearly this flaw in the editor has now been rectified. However because that edit was done 2 years ago I cannot be sure. Hope this reason is not too strange for you.

Fantastic appearances can be deceptive. The left carriageway separates into three lanes here, the left hand one of which you can only use to bypass the roundabout, turning left along Abergele Road. You cannot enter it. I have therefore tagged it as a one-way Primary Link as this lane has no intersection with the way marked as the roundabout.
Only a single entry/exit node was shared at around the 7 o'clock position, as far as I could see - not many of them. Corrected that.

Hi BCNorwich - I'm not sure what you mean by self intersection but I presume its where a way goes back on itself. I have no idea how you can find out which ways have this error either so am unable to check and correct them. As you can find them have you any hints?
Some areas around this region had their landuse mapped initially some years ago, some by me some by others, when the "farm" tag was active. I know its deprecated now but this may be one of the instances that remains. I've changed the areas in this region that I have found to "farmland".

Thankyou. I've joined the mailing list but have to wait for a moderator to approve my membership of this "friendly" community. From what I read from the Archives certain members of said list seem to operate with an unheathly degree of cynicism and self-righteous hostility at unseen targets (that's not aimed at you BTW) - but I suppose that's Member's Clubs for you.
Have a good day Marco.

I see that you have decided to arbitrarily scrub all the tags from hundreds of the areas which I have mapped over the last few years - whether I created them originally or not - and retagged with an outline with "This is not a heath" - well sorry a lot of the areas certainly are as per the OSM definition. While I agree that some of the oddly blocked out areas in West Wales do not qualify - many of which have been originally placed by Sam888, (who you also appear to hold in great disdain in addition to myself),
I frankly did not want to block out or delete these areas as it would have meant modifying the map data too extensively, been very time consuming, and you would have no way of knowing which were correct or not.
You clearly did not consider this to be a retrograde step - and just decided unilaterally to step in, having admitted you have very little local knowledge of the areas which your bot was modifying, and deleted enormous amounts of what *may* have been, in many cases, correct data. For instance: way/277459130.
Not in the Snowdonia National Park. Not mapped by Sam888 using enormous polygons and correct as per OSM definitions of healthland - yet nuked by your bot nonetheless.
I do not use automated tools to map and never have done. I have also never worked for a mapping company as you allege but give my time freely to try to improve the map - whether I map all day or not is frankly my business, and I can use my time how I see fit. As for being "uncommunicative" that again is my business.
I request that you revert this changeset/46000525 as while it does clear off the nasty (and for the most part pointless) brown stain all over the Snowdonia National Park - it also deletes ALL other correctly mapped heathland which I have placed or edited in the past.

The Roman Steps are NOT where you have tagged here as named. These ways are a path which leads to the steeper "stepped" packhorse track known as the Roman Steps. Did you delete an earlier way as the history for this way does not reference the original? This path was marked previous to your edit but now there is no history prior to the changeset/31428280 in which you created the way. You then reference this error as a Source for a revert?
You do seem very quick on the draw with your reverter plugin.