Thanks Marc, now corrected

Thanks Marc for updating. If you see what are very obvious(?) typos that make no impact, feel free to just change them. I do reply to comments but only when I have free time. I know you mean well but you on the borderline between being helpful and being offensive.
Cheers,
Mike

Hi Marc,
No information is lost and the editting is done from on the ground survey. In the Philippine example, the imagery is very much out of date and you have tagged as "orchard" ground that has been cleared and used for accommodation by two entities, several building with no clear boundary between them and probable shared usage.

Hi Marc,
Thank you for getting in touch. No, it is a user defined value by me as there is nothing that overlaps it. I find it very useful for making maps of resort / beach areas to show and demarcate the often customer-only areas of hotels. Taginfo suggests that many have been removed.

Happy mapping,
Mike

Yes, your summise correct. Corrected now. Thanks for pointing out.

Yep! Fixed now. Thanks Mateusz

Not visited by me. Given its location, I'd guess that phodgkin is right in that it was not an obviously visible "trig point" but either bench mark or simple spot height. He also seems to have actually visited the area looking at other nearby edits.

Andy, corrected now ("barn"). Thanks. Mike

Hi Alpha1904, I believe you added a comment 'I cannot find any source that names this "Wilderness Beck"' and I have now found the reference: On OS sheet 168, publ. 1854, the beck is Wilderness Beck before it crosses Otley Road and then (upstream) Skibeden Beck. I am now editting the map to reflect that. The name probably comes from an area labelled "The Wilderness" just north of Short Bank Lane. [The Wilderness name may have fallen completely out of use so feel free to further edit - but please preserve it as an alt_name.]

Thanks for not just deleting the tagging, I personally feel that OSM is important for preserving names that folks are beginning to forget. Regards and Happy Mapping, Mike

Michael Collinson

Thanks Bernard. Corrected!

Happy Mapping,
Mike

Thanks for pointing them out Marc. Fumble fingers! Both fixed now.

Happy mapping,
Michael

Coldstone House - Thanks for confirming on the ground. I have doene as you suggest. /Mike

Mateusz, Yes, as you surmise, a typo. Changed now.

Yes, I am fine with site_type -> archaeological_site and if you see any more please feel free to change. (IMHO change is a bit silly and retrograde but consensus and conformability are more important).

More generally, I trying to find a way to find to succinctly classify historic POIs. The historic tag itself gives a sense of "how interesting is this?" which I think is good archealogical_site (may be nothing visible or just a grass knoll) vs. (possibly more exciting) ruins for example. Then there is the historic category itself, which is sometimes covered by the "historic" tag itself and sometimes not. Still experimenting and have not found the perfect answer.

Thanks for for checking Mateusz. Yes, a typo and corrected now. /Mike

Thanks for following this up. No I don't really agree - I see the intent but feel it confusing and unnecessarily difficult to apply cartography. I am from this area. The area is a boulder field as a result of former glacial action, either erratics (carried from elsewhere) or the underscouring and collapse of a very local escarpment. My 'boulders' tag is properly descriptive both to native english speakers and I hope in translation BUT is not part of Map Features. 'stone' is part of Map Features but relates to a single boulder/stone/rock. The mapper has tried to deal with this by a adding field=yes which can be confused with a farm field ... and not part of Map Features.

Kia, Not really valid (I am a former geophysicist). There are 3 kinds of plate boundary: convergent (resulting in thrust faults), transform (resulting in transform faults) and divergent resulting in plate spreading, not really a fault in one place.
Perhaps I am being pedantic as a specialist but I'd prefer plate_boundary (something very, very special and worth mapping for tourist value) to fault (much more general and perhaps OpenStreetMap is not the right place). I'd like to correct it but will wait in case you want to respond.

No, the same. Thanks for pointing it out. I have now changed it.

Good to know, thank you Warin

Hi Talitha, I have updated the water bodies from newer/better aerial imagery. It looks like active land reclamation is occurring so may need further update as and when imagery becomes available.

Happy mapping!