Hi - I notice that you've removed a tag from way/22777541/history - "source:highway=unclassified" = "survey". Was there a reason for this? It was added deliberately - there's a problem locally with people (who have never surveyed the area) changing unclassified roads to tertiary because they think they ought to be, regardless of the role that the actual road plays locally.

You really shouldn't just remove information from OSM like this without trying to understand why its there - the best way is usually by communicating with the people who added it.

Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap. However, I suspect that you might have got a bit carried away - this looks like a geographically widely spread mechanical edit.

These are covered by policy here: osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy

The very first requirement is "Discuss". It's there for a number of reasons. One is that sometimes new mappers use the wrong tag for things, but they obviously don't know that they are doing so. It's important to discuss with them how something may be tagged better in the future so that next time they'll know what tag to use. In this case it's by no means straightforward that "contact:google+" or "google_plus" is "more correct", however.

Another reason why it's important to discuss beforehand is that, even if the change is a good idea (which isn't clear here), it's important that people who use the data know that it is going to change. to take the previous example, someone might be rendering the previous contact tags on a map; they need to be told to change the way that they are render them before the change is made to the database.

Anyway, hope you don't mind me saying this; if you've got any questions please don't hesitate to ask - Andy.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

However, I think that something seems to have gone wrong with this changeset - there are a couple of motorways here: way/327590934 and way/327592607
They don't seem to match anything in the imagery?

These two adjacent nodes node/2399839566 and node/3334900047 have different add:city values. It's possible I guess, but perhaps it might be worth checking?

I notice that you've removed the name:sr from node/2401263785/history . If the majority of people locally refer to it as "Lubishtë" rather than "Љубиште" then it does make sense for the "name" in OpenStreetMap to be "Lubishtë" rather than "Љубиште". However, if both names are in use, or were in use relatively recently, then it makes sense to keep the "name:sr" set to "Љубиште", even though the "name" is "Lubishtë".

Anyway - hope this helps; if you've any questions please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group.

Imagery sources suggest that Wild Moor is (a) not a peak and (b) not in this location. What evidence do you have that it is here?

Imagery sources suggest that this has been added in the wrong place.

What's the evidence for this place name at this location? The cited imagery suggests an entirely different location.

Are you absolutely sure that there is a _hill_ here called Heaton Park that is entirely distinct from the _park_ called Heaton Park and the _suburb_ named Heaton Park?

Why have you added a duplicate "Puffin Island" here node/3334123665 ? See also node/322941508 .

Just because some old name appears on an old out of copyright map doesn't mean that it makes sense to assume that it applies to a "natural=peak" with that name at that location. The driving principle should be osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element .

@Mergen - don't worry, it's not there any more :)

We've all made mistakes like this - the only people who haven't have never tried to do anything in the first place!

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I'm guessing that the new footpath
way/325891338 actually joins the roads at each side. If so, if you make it join in OSM routers will be able to send people by that route to get between the two roads.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap - I'm guessing that in reality way/325696441 joins the Middlewich Road to the south as well as the road to the north (via another footpath, by the looks of the imagery)? If so, then if you add that footpath into OSM routers will be able to send people along your new footpath!

Is node/3289778361 some sort of shop? If so, it could do with a shop (or office, or other) main tag explaining what it is.

Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

This edit and your immediately subsequent one seemed to just drag a few things around on a business park (which have now since been undone). If you want somewhere to "practice" you might find http://opengeofiction.net/ appropropriate - no-one there is going to complain that what's on the map doesn't match the real world!

However, if you do want to map the real world, then I'm sure that there are lots of things to add around Hampshire.

Cheers,
Andy

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I notice that you've deleted the name of node/3275313321/history - it was apparently "Ali Baba" until 10 days ago. If it's something different now I'd just change the name to what it now is. Or perhaps you were trying to change something else and the name got removed by mistake?

Anyway, hope you don't mind me mentioning this - if you've got any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch.
Cheers,
Andy

Hello - I think that something went a bit wrong with changeset/28696038 both in London (way/241384643 was dragged to one side and joined to the railway line) and Japan (way/183545944/history seemed to have been dragged onto a public building). I've reverted it, but do you need any help with the edit that you were trying to make? Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I notice that you've deleted way/16963059/history in changeset/28572677 with the changeset comment "Not a bridleway". Has this (i.e. the section east of where the public bridleway goes northeast) definitely been removed? It looked like it was still accessible to traffic when I was last there (summer last year), and there are underlying GPS traces of course.

Oops - I think that something's gone a bit wrong with the steps way/325885958/history - now they neither join the cycleway nor Bestwood Road (I'm guessing that in reality they connect both)?

Hi - just spotted that you've joined Colbeck Street and the car park way/323832277 to the west. Do these definitely join? The imagery suggests probably not. There's already a note in the area note/277305 , so I've added a comment to that to say check access to the west too.