Just for info - these edits did get mentioned to the Data Working Group (hence osm.org/user_blocks/5473 ) and I did wonder whether we need to revert these additions. However, things like way/1005816016 should be easily detectable via QA sites, so I don't thing that there is a need to actually delete the newly added way there.
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

It's possible to further classify farmland with an extra tag, such as "farmland=pasture" for farmland that is predominantly or currently pastoral. I added that as a slightly different colour to https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16&lat=54.08448&lon=-1.04706 - that lighter green is regular farmland, but usually has sheep on it. None of that shows up here https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14&lat=51.07093&lon=-1.62774 , because I suspect the farmland hasn't been further classified.

"s/only/online", obviously (I can't even type on a regular keyboard, never mind a phone!)

> You shouldn't bother however to translate
I know you do - but the casual local mapper in the area might not. It's just a courtesy to them really, to save people having to cut and paste into an only translator, which can be a pain, especially on mobile.

Hello,
Was the removal of "type=route" and "route=foot" from relation/3551378 here accidental?
Best Regards,
Andy

Ciao Martino,
Se il nome in italiano è "Bocchetta del Nebbione", allora "name:it" sarebbe il tag corretto.
Tuttavia, se il problema è distinguere tra "italiano svizzero" e "italiano italiano", potresti prendere in considerazione qualcosa come i tag del nome su node/267762522 - che ha due nomi in lingua inglese su it, un "name:en_GB" e un "name:en_IE".
Distinti saluti,
Andy

Hello Martino,
If the name in Italian is "Bocchetta del Nebbione", then "name:it" would be the correct tag.
However, if the problem is distinguishing between "Swiss Italian" and "Italian Italian" then you might want to consider something like the name tags on node/267762522 - that has two English language names on it, one "name:en_GB" and one "name:en_IE".
Best Regards,
Andy

That was moved from a dodgy "ourairports.com" import location to a more accurate one, likely based on Google Maps (with an odd "ref=Google Maps" tag). However, Bing imagery confirms the current location as being correct.
There's no valid source of the ICAO code though. Wikipedia isn't a valid source for OSM, and none of the English wikipedia articles primary sources are either.

Zzyzx is pretty famous, actually:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zzyzx%2C_California
(although it certainly gave me a WTF moment moment when I first saw the sign while driving past!)

Great - thanks!

Great, thanks!

Thanks - it's looking a lot more complete now!
I'm guessing the small gap at relation/1230368#map=18/53.34428/-1.32571 could also be added?
Cheers,
Andy

Hello - a quick question about the South West Coast Path west of Polperro. Yesterday this is the route that it took: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1dOc
and today: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1dOd .
Is the removal of the section west of Polperro from the SWCP deliberate or accidental (sometimes things get moved because of bits of paths falling into the sea).
Also now way/1009394481 no longer connects to the path to the west presumably that bit shouldn't be part of the SWCP any more?
Best Regards,
Andy

way/820371339 appears to be still operational as of October 2021, runway is mown and windsock active

(машинний переклад)

Цей набір змін було повністю або частково повернуто набором змін 114291939, де коментар до набору змін: Після звіту для DWG скасовується серія масових видалення в Україні. Дивіться osm.org/user_blocks/5477.

I'm guessing that way/815289737/history was an aircraft at some point (not a fence) but it doesn't seem to be on any imagery currently available to OSM. What was it?

Re "And for some reason you are fighting only with me.":
I'm only dealing with this because firstly, OSM's Data Working Group received specific reports about this problem, and they all mentioned you by name.
Secondly, I actually did have a look at other additions of "tracktype" in the mountains (you can see my changeset comments) - the person there said they'd been hiking locally, and inferred tracktype from that local knowledge.

Re https://map.land.gov.ua/?cc=2657643.816380124,6197966.900528279&z=16&l=kadastr&bl=ortho10k_all , (a) what is the licence associated with that site and the imagery displayed on that site and (b) what does it prove anyway? The fact that there was a break in the trees an unknown number of years ago does not prove the existance of any sort of track or path that is suitable for OSM.

For completeness, this revert doesn't mean that the DWG has taken a view on what the "correct" boundaries are here. As I said in osm.org/user_blocks/5487 , there's definitely a case to be made for Somaliland operating "on the ground" as a country, but that is a case that needs to be made to the rest of the OSM community.
- Andy (from the DWG)

Re the licence, just to transfer some comments from Slack, so that everyone can read them.
Someone mentioned https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Esri-ArcGIS-FAQ , and someone else mentioned osm.wiki/Import/United_States_Addresses .

https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Esri-ArcGIS-FAQ links to https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Esri-ArcGIS-FAQ which doesn't mention New Jersey, so per the second comment I guess this must have come from osm.wiki/Import/United_States_Addresses . Confusingly the licence for that osm.wiki/File:Usdot_nad_license.png says in the text "this is CC0" but the page links to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ - I'm guessing that that last link is a cockup!