Something's gone very wrong here but it needs a proper on-the-ground survey. I've added note/328669 .

Things like "Happy Park" etc. have turned up in that area before - I think that they're part of some "introduction to OSM" tutorial (though I've not managed to find the source of it).

Geographically, this is a very large changeset, and "Fix wrong tag" doesn't really describe what you did or what the source for it was. Would it be possible to use smaller bounding boxes and be a little more descriptive in changeset comments? That way other mappers can easily see what was changed and why.

Also, it'd be really useful, where new users have misspelt tags consistently, to contact them in a welcoming and friendly way explaining what they're doing wrong.

From looking at the available out of copyright and open data maps, it's clear that the name "Gob" (anglicised as "Cob" on OS_OpenData) clearly applies to the dwelling to the north, not to the peak. You were messaged earlier about misappropriating names like this -
osm.org/user_blocks/606 - please don't do it.

What was the source of this name? All open and out of copyright OS imagery sources have just "Mwdwl-eithin".

That's great - thanks.

You've changed "tourist=yes" to "tourism=yes" relation/3459907/history . Was that deliberate? Do you know what idea the original mapper was trying to get across, because it's not really clear to me without asking them?

Geographically this is a very large changeset, and "Mission: unconnected roads" doesn't really explain what you're doing and where. It would help other mappers find out what has changed near them if you could:
o Use smaller bounding boxes
o Explain in more detail what changes have been made and why (e.g. something like road X joined to road Y based on Bing imagery)

Geographically this is a very large changeset, and it would really help other mappers find out what has changed near them if you could use smaller bounding boxes.

Geographically this is a very large changeset, and "some taginfo fixes" doesn't really explain what you're doing and where. It would help other mappers find out what has changed near them if you could:
o Use smaller bounding boxes
o Explain in more details which tags have been changed and why in the changeset comment

Also, could you have a look again at way/259092542 ? It has a somewhat implausible tag combination of "barrier=wall", "leisure=park", "natural=tree". I'm guessing that although it might be a park with a wall around it, it's highly unlikely to be one very large tree. There is a tree within the park (mapped as duplicate nodes node/2653847187 and node/2644242973) so maybe the tree tag is in error? To find out, I'd suggest trying to contact the original mapper. If that doesn't work (it may not, they haven't mapped for a year or so) then perhaps add a note asking a local to check what's really there.

Hello, I think that something's gone a bit wrong with this changeset.

You've changed addr:Street to addr:street on way/309760649/history , but surely as mapped "addr:housenumber=29" makes no sense at all here? The odd houses number up to 13, and then apparently the next 8 all share number 29. If you see something like this I'd at the very least add an OSM note explaining the discrepancy; and in this case there's probably enough information to add individual housnumbers.

Also please do use changeset comments explaining what you're doing and why, and smaller bounding boxes (so that people from the south of Brazil to the north of Germany don't wonder what you've changed) would also greatly help your fellow mappers to understand what's happening.

Finally - something that would really help, and not enough people within OSM do - these sorts of typos are often made by new users, who don't know that they've made an error. it would be great if you help them by mentioning (in a welcoming and friendly way) what the problem was and what you fixed. Of course, you may have already done this by OSM message - if so, thank you very much!

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group

andygol, if a place does not have a name in a particular language you should not make one up just to appear in a certain character set. If no-one in Seaton refers to it as "Ситон" then that is _not_ a name of that place.

It's even more bizarre that you've chosen to use wikidata here. One issue is that wikidata does link wikipedia articles for Seaton, which have been translated into multiple languages, and therefore surely wikidata could be used as a source for any multilingual map (provided that source accreditation issues are dealt with), rather than shoe-horning the wikidata names into OSM. Ethnologue (http://www.ethnologue.com/world) says that there are > 7000 languages in the world. Taginfo (http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=name) says that there are 44,000,000 names in OSM. Clearly it makes no sense to have every name translated or "soundalike transliterated" into 7,000 other languages - OSM would soon become nothing more than a list of translations. The other issue with wikidata is licensing. Although wikidata claims to be cc0, that doesn't work when it's (as here) just a bunch of stuff copied from non-cc0 locations. In this case the English source is allegedly geonames, but the wiki history clearly shows a wikipedia source for the translations: http://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1235885&oldid=1872331 . That's incompatible licence-wise - wikipedia's current cc-by-sa licence requires attribution in some use cases that ODBL can't provide.

So:
o The name of Seaton is not Ситон
o The source you copied that "name" from was not appropriate to be imported into OSM for technical reasons
o The source you copied that "name" from was not appropriate to be imported into OSM for licence reasons
o You imported the name without any discussion with the GB community.

Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I'm a bit confused by this change - what does "River street frame site analysis" mean, and can people really walk along this section of the A57M? It seems a bit odd...

This is a large changeset, but in terms of the geographical area that it covers and the number of ways affected. How do I know, without going through each of the 27 pages of ways individually or using an external site if any of them affect my local area?

It'd be much better if you could use smaller changeset bounding boxes and more meaningful changeset comments - "div. Adresskorrekturen" doesn't say what was wrong and was fixed or what the source was.

Hi,
I've never walked to Buxton end of the Dane Valley Way, but I'm guessing that the members of relation/4594921 need merging into relation/946847#map=18/53.24520/-1.92822 (see the "gap" there for info).
Cheers,
Andy

This looks very much like a mechanical edit. Was it discussed anywhere first? Regardless or not of whether or not the tag change would make sense it would be only polite to let people know that you're changing the data that they are consuming, so that they get some warning that their maps or calculations based on extracted data will no longer show some things because tags have been changed without warning underneath their feet.

You've moved a post box node/413987347/history to the north pole. Is this for use by Santa?

Hi, just spotted you patched up a "doubling back" way in Brichover by a newbie here. Did you send them any sort of "hello and welcome" email to help them not do the same thing again?

Hello - I think that something went a bit wrong with way/140979050 and node/379662989 in this changeset. The way is both a "place of worship" and a "footway" (which seems unlikely) and the node is a duplicate place of worship of the same name.