Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Please respect each other's names for things - as you can see from https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/456788679 there have been numerous deletions by several users, including both of you.
If you continue to do that we will have to prevent you from editing OSM.

Hola Calasanz, soy Andy, del Grupo de Trabajo de Datos de OSM.
Gracias por añadir una imagen de Wikimedia Commons de la señal de calle way/529079441. Como pueden ver en https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/529079441, el nombre ha cambiado con el paso de los años.
Sin embargo, sugeriría dejar las versiones "name:ca" y "name:es" si son correctas (que presumiblemente lo son). Tener todos los nombres de idiomas para una calle permite a quienes consultan los datos crear nombres en diferentes idiomas. Si se elimina name:es, no sabrán cuál es el nombre en español, ya que nada define en qué idioma se escribe "name".
Atentamente,

Hello Calasanz,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Thanks for adding a Wikimedia Commons image of the street sign of way/529079441 . As you can see from https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/529079441 , the name has been changed back and forth over the years.
However, I would suggest leaving the "name:ca" and "name:es" versions if they are correct (which they presumably are). Having all of the language names for a street allows people consuming the data to make makes in different languages. If you removing name:es, they won't know what the Spanish name is since nothing defines what language "name" is.
Best Regards,

Hello,
I'm a bit surprised to see that https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/829316713 became "bicycle=dismount" here. It's tagged as a public bridleway in OSM, which agrees with the local authority https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#19/53.25103/-1.83267/H/P , so I'd expect "bicycle" to be at least "yes". Are there signs discouraging cycling?
Best Regards,
Andy

(in the pouring rain)

@synthfi I suspect that it's forgivable in this case as they're using MAPS.ME to update the details of some airports they flew through - likely they weren't in a position to upload until they got home.

Agreed - "manmade" is pretty obviously a typo for "man_made" here.
Where problems might occur with changes like this is where both "manmade" and "man_made" were set. Here there were only 5 and only node/8322504104/history had them set to plausible different values (although there are only 30 https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=scoreboard , and the existence of a subtag suggests the other value).

The obvious precaution is "not to use Google Maps as a source". There's more information at osm.wiki/Google and osm.wiki/FAQ#Why_don't_you_just_use_Google_Maps/whoever_for_your_data? .

Thanks!

You probably haven't got to it yet, but way/403875321/history is also iffy.

Is there a crossing island at node/12980053851 ?

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I wouldn't add "trafic_calming=table" tp the whole of way/1441998851 ; if you look at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gOQ you can see how it is more normally used on ways.
Best Regards,
Andy
PS: Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

I don't know much about UPRNs, but just checking - is node/27212056 OK?

osm.org/user_blocks/19111
osm.org/user_blocks/19112

Thanks!

Hello,
Is way/338502643 really a forest of palm trees? I know that southwest Scotland has the Gulf Stream, but this seems a bit unlikely :)
Cheers,
Andy

I think it was "missing presumed sunk" wasn't it?
See changeset/154996123 and the links from there. That one Mastodon reply remains, but I'm sure at around that time there were more links to "cruise ships failing to see it" etc.

Oops - I think that something's gone a bit wrong with way/238218979#map=19/52.032914/-0.550840 and way/238218977#map=19/52.033010/-0.550553 . They used to join - see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gDg from a few days ago, but now there's a gap in the public bridleway and in the "Greensand Ridge Walk". See https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/52.03304/-0.55017/H/P .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Andy from the Data Working Group here - just picking up a couple of points from the above:

> I also confirm on OS maps.

For the avoidance of doubt, we can't use that as a source for OSM, unless it's either out of copyright (many old maps are) or released under a compatible licence (like OSM OpenMap local. However, none of these will tell you much about the current state of a path or track (but if, as you have, you've visited as well, whatever the OS says is moot).

> Footpath only, so access all is No, foot is designated

Yes, something signed as a public footpath as way/1455397161/history is here should be foot=yes or designated (as well as designation=public_footpath), but the fact that something is a public footpath doesn't mean that other traffic is "no" - I can think of plenty of counterexamples from permissive bridleways to farm show access roads and more besides.

> Marking as yes to All results in apps/maps that use OSM showing these as if they're a ROW.

I don't think that people have suggested that - the tag changes on the northern bit can be seen at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/1455397161 and the other part https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/119370360 . No-one has tried to suggest "access=yes" here as far as I can see.

As to what way/119370360 should be tagged as, "access=no" or "=private" would make sense if there were e.g. gates and/or big keep out signs. However, "=permissive" would make sense where there was genuine permissive access, as would not setting it if it really wasn't clear.
I can think of plenty of examples of all of those.
Best Regards,
Andy

(for completeness - @b-unicycling/diary/407814 )
Thanks!