Have you got a link? What is the licence for the data?

What was the source of the opening hours for way/243566797/history ? Are you sure that they are Mo-Su 07:00-22:00 ? Whenever I walk past on the way to the chippy it often looks closed, or is just closing, and it's not normally as late as 22:00.

Is way/321275612/history really a supermarket? It's just behind a garage isn't it? Previously it was mapped as a convenience store node/1200614273/history . When did you last visit it?

Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I think that something has gone a bit wrong with this changeset - lots of untagged nodes got added, most or all of them where there are electricity pylons or other electricity cables. I've no idea what "Angle Towers PHG, PW and PWG Routes" means, but I'm guessing that it's related to electricity infrastructure. If you look at node/3278087407 (one of your new nodes) and node/1974912400/history (an existing electricity pylon) you'll see that they're in exactly the same place. Things in OpenStreetMap need a "tag" to indicate what they represent in the real world - have a look at osm.wiki/Beginners%27_guide and osm.wiki/Elements#Tag for more information. If you're trying to do something with existing pylons then you'll want to do something with the existing node on that spot, not create a new one. If it would help, I can undo this change that created the duplicates - would you like me to do that? Or are these nodes actually representing something else somewhere else and you're going to move them?

Anyway - hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to help. Drop me a message (either here or via "send message") if there's anything that I can do.

Cheers,
Andy

What's the source of node/2666169512 ("Brauncewell Hilll Top") and node/2666169531 ("West Pastures")?

The source on both objects and the changeset says Bing, but clearly this is not the case (certainly names such as this are not visible on Bing aerial imagery - you're not using Bing maps, are you?).

The comment on the changeset says "Added place names from OS Street View Data". However, neither alleged place name is visible there either. Neither is visible from any of the tracks that I've walked in the area either.

Where did the names come from?

You also added node/3254515663 as a duplicate of an existing church. I deleted it.

I notice that you've got Vicarage Lane way/2430164/history and way/220117216 down as a tertiary now. The last time that I was there, it most definitely didn't look tertiary - it was a stretch to describe it as unclassified (which previous mappers had had it as). Is the access restriction still in place? That seems somewhat unlikely on a tertiary road.

Also, it would be really helpful to other mappers if you used changeset comments explaining what you've changed and what the source of that change was. Currently there's simply no clue where these changes are coming from (in the case of this particular change it's really difficult to imagine where it could be coming from, unless there's been a substantial redevelopment in the village - in which case saying so in the changeset comment would be really helpful).

You've changed a couple of the east-west roads in Navenby to tertiary (way/40230699/history and way/142418281/history). What evidence was this based on?

node/3278169348 has been added in the middle of the road - this seems unlikely?

@Test360, re the process: There's a mechanical edit policy described in the wiki here:

osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy

The very first requirement is "Discuss". It's there for a number of reasons. OpenStreetMap is a shared database, but it's actually more than that - it's the results of people actually getting out of the house walking around for a while and writing down what they see about the physical world. That takes time and effort, and for the results of that time and effort to be lost in some tag homogenisation would be very sad indeed, so one of the reasons why it's important to discuss mechanical edits before performing them is simply just human politeness. Another reason (already mentioned elsewhere) 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. A third reason why it's important to discuss mechanical edits before performing them is that sometimes the basis on which the mechanical edit is to be performed is incorrect (the "all deciduous trees and broadleaved" assumption was an example of this sort of incorrect assumption). You simply cannot believe everything you read in the wiki. A fourth reason why it's important to discuss beforehand is that, even if the change is a good idea, it's important that people who use the data know that it is going to change. Someone might be rendering "wood=deciduous" on a map; they need to be told to change the way that they render trees before the change is made to the database.

Please, sit down and read osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy and follow what it says.

Hi - there are a few untagged ways that look like buildings in this changeset - way/321036882 is an example. I think that it's worth checking to see if any need tagging as some sort of buildings.

@Test360 - although it's perhaps easy to get lost in a conversation entirely conducted in changeset discussion comments, perhaps it would help to read from the top again, including the comment that says "Your changesets have not been reverted because the content was wrong, but because the process was wrong".

Are you sure that the imagery matches the current situation? It was only edited a month ago. One bad winter was enough to virtually destroy way/99553670 near me, for example.

Are you sure that the surface on way/314569029 is asphalt rather than dirt (which was presumably what the original mapper was trying to say)? I'm not convinced that you can always tell surface type from an aerial picture - in this situation surely the best solution is to contact the original mapper (it was only a month ago; they should still be active) and ask them, and then if that works add an OSM note?

You said "Contacting the original mapper is unecessary, because the mistake is obvious.". It may be obvious to you (and me) that the tagging is incorrect here - the point of contacting the original mapper is so that _they_ know that there was a problem (they clearly didn't know the original tagging was wrong at the time that they used it, obviously). There's an English saying that applies here:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/give_a_man_a_fish_and_you_feed_him_for_a_day;_teach_a_man_to_fish_and_you_feed_him_for_a_lifetime

Thanks for that - I've joined the cycleway to the road in changeset/28002836 . I've added a map note for Evans Road (note/298397) and the car park (note/298398).

"Correction semi-automatisée d'erreurs dans les noms de lieux (espaces surnuméraires, mauvaise capitalisation des intitulés de voie, coquilles dans les noms de voies)" is certainly more descriptive than "Toponymie AUTOmatic nettoyage".

To reduce the geographic spread could you perhaps do mainland France in separate changesets to French territories in the Caribbean, with e.g. French territories off Canada in separate changesets again?

That's a very wide changeset, without a changeset comment (other than the "created_by" tag). Would it be possible to restrict your leather-clad friend to slightly smaller areas, and use changeset comments explaining the data affected and the sort of changes made? It would help explain to people who see this changeset in the history local to them what was going on.

Hi - does the cycleway way/320636187 join the Evans Road at the northwest end? Logically you'd think that it would - if so the two ways in OSM should join too. Also, does the road that goes south to Thompsons Road currently look OK to you? Someone's edited it so that it joins the car park at the southwestern corner - is that correct? I'm assuming that you're local and so will probably know.

Cheers,
Andy

For info, at the weekend I went and had a look at this area:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6SY

and it turns out that things are _much_ more complicated than how I had previously mapped it. There are at least four groups of "planting type" there (old-growth broadleaved deciduous on the SSSI, planted-for-forestry pine in neat rows, some "odds and sods" mixed deciduous between the pine plantings, and some areas that are virtually heathland). I'll have a go at updating over the next week or so, but it's complicated.