Yay! Thanks for fixing this. It resolves note/1565 , which I've now closed.

Whilst I can confirm that node/390376124/history (in another changeset) is definitely a "Church" and not a "Chuch", would it be possible to describe in a bit more detail what the "Other fixes" are in this one? It's quite a wide changeset, hence difficult to visualise.

Thanks - the data for the footway's actually from around 1950, not 2009! (it's source=npe). I'll close note/236762 and create another one the other side of Hungerhill Lane, suggesting that a survey is done there.

In situations such as this it's really not helpful to edit OSM to try and "fix" errors - they need an on-the ground survey, and one way of targetting where to survey is where QA sites list errors. Hiding these errors from QA sites makes it more difficult to correct the data _properly_.

I would definitely suggest using OSM notes in situations such as this.

Is "Greno Wood (Nature Reserve)" really the name of this? If it is actually a nature reserve, perhaps a leisure=nature_reserve tag would make sense?

Is way/3316367 really oneway=yes? At the time that the Bing imagery was taken, it clearly wasn't (there are cars going both ways on it).

This looks very much like a mechanical edit of "tower_type" to "tower:type". Was this discussed anywhere, so to anyone relying on "tower_type" in the data (e.g. for a local map) knows that they need to now expect "tower:type" instead?

Also, the changeset comment ("syntaxfehler") doesn't describe the actual change being made.

Also, the changeset comment "water" really isn't very descriptive. Much more helpful would have been something like "mechanical editing all amenity=drinking_water to remove any drinkable=yes tags".

I notice that this large changeset removes the "drinkable=yes" tag from e.g. node/966339776/history . Was this change discussed anywhere so that anyone previously rendering "drinkable=yes" on a map would no to update it before this change was made?

As mapped, Ravensburgh Close doesn't quite match the changeset description. I've added a note (note/270470) asking what more needs to be done.

Did you ask the original creator of the changeset whether that is what they meant in this particular case?

I notice that this (extremely wide) changeset has changed e.g. node/1419597467/history from "shop=antiquities" to "shop=antiques". From an English language perspective, I'd expect that a "shop=antiquities" would sell very different things to a "shop=antiques". Did you do anything (e.g. survey) to check that "shop=antiques" is in fact valid here? It's certainly not a "spelling error" which your changeset comment suggests.

Similarly way/98459718/history

way/98459702/history was also not previously cutting=yes but got merged into way/98459611

way/98459676/history was not previously cutting=yes but now is as a result of a merge with way/32945834/history . Is this correct or does this change need undoing?

A loading gauge wasn't set on way/60163882/history but now is following merge with way/311506937/history . Is it correct?

A maxspeed wasn't previously present on way/108260414/history but now is following the merge with way/3693981 . Is it valid?

way/205941672/history previously wasn't cutting=yes but now is as a result of a merge with way/5235449#map=15/53.3182/-1.5313&layers=N .

Similarly a different loading gauge has got merged onto the former constituents of way/3751744/history . Is this correct too?

I notice also that a loading gauge has been set between nodes that were previously part of way/3751657/history . Is this new loading gauge correct?

The source information that was previously on way/298620258/history has been lost in the transfer to way/4017752 . Bing imagery may be more accurate than it used to be but I challenge anyone to accurately determine a railway loading gauge from it!