Hello,
If it was me, and I was changing the name of something like node/5360429276 from one language to another, I'd actually add the other language (here name:gd) as an explicit name tag too so that people understand which languages are involved (although not everyone does that).
I'd also discuss edits like this with the wider community - perhaps https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-scotland or talk-gb, or better https://community.openstreetmap.org/tags/c/communities/uk/86/scotland - where automatic two-way translation may be possible.
Best Regards,
Andy

I understand the frustration with the Golf software's inability to handle multipolygons, (and at people pretending that everything is a simple area instead), but that doesn't mean that _every_ fairway has to be a multipolygon, surely?

@JacekMarek you say that "the private tag is a mistake" but then "these are areas without access". I'm confused - the from the discussion above, "private" sounds correct to me, and (as I write this) it hasn't been set yet: https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/409100652

https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/409100652

This is just a revert with no comment. Can you explain why the previous version was wrong and your version is correct?
In changeset/157023417 they explained that that bit of grass that you can see around the green isn't part of the fairway.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Cześć Marcin,
Wygląda na to, że z tej rozmowy i innych wynika, że ​​„prywatne” byłoby tutaj właściwym tagowaniem.
Jeśli uważasz, że to nieprawda, sugeruję, abyś omówił to na stronie https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/pl/40.
Pozdrawiam,

Andy Townsend, w imieniu Grupy Roboczej ds. Danych OSM.

Hello Marcin,
It sounds, from this conversation and from others, that "private" would actually be the correct tagging here.
If you believe this to be incorrect I would suggest that you discuss it at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/pl/40 .
Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Thanks - it reappeared in my database afterwards too.

Thanks!

Like changeset/118501311 et al, surely this is Gunnerside not Grosmont? We know there's an obviously wrong Yorkshire Water spreadsheet out there (see several previous on https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments.php?uid=508 ), so I think we all have to check any names added against the "sniff test" - does this name look right for this place, or is it perhaps the name of somewhere else?
Cheers,
Andy

Presumably when work is complete it'll also fix the gap in relation/9310601 :)

Hello - a quick question about relation/16788800#map=18/52.332694/-0.135961 - It looks like there are three possible routes there, but I guess you know which one is correct :)

Thanks!

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/error-document-not-well-formed-while-trying-to-upload-osm-file-into-osm-server-via-https-api-openstreetmap-org-api-0-6-changeset-2345678-upload/119764/2

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/error-document-not-well-formed-while-trying-to-upload-osm-file-into-osm-server-via-https-api-openstreetmap-org-api-0-6-changeset-2345678-upload/119764/3

:)

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/error-document-not-well-formed-while-trying-to-upload-osm-file-into-osm-server-via-https-api-openstreetmap-org-api-0-6-changeset-2345678-upload/119764/3

Thanks for reverting changeset/151566709 , but it looks like the person who did that also changed the names in changeset/150898937 . Using https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/relation/13407035 I've tried to set the names back to the previous values to that relation/13407035 is again "Morocco except Western Sahara".

Thanks for raising it on the forum!

For info, this is what a bar billiards table looks like: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/241539.jpg . That's not one of these but the one in node/559267374/ .

Please don't add AI generated slop to the OSM database.
If someone wants to see that, they can perform the same mechanical process that you did.

Oops - I'm guessing a name of "D" for relation/3266778 is an accident?
Best Regards,
Andy