Also includes a fair bit of water downstream of Square Corner from OS OpenData StreetView, OS OpenData Local and Bing.

... and survey

I've undone the change to the island in 115707320 but left the new cafe way/1017300365 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Please try and use better changeset descriptions than simply "Edit City. "
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
The recommendation on names is at osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only . The "standard" map misses lots of information that other maps can show. For example, https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=13.0/53.8319/-1.4205 shows how the "Leeds Country Way" runs through Barwick, and if you look a bit further east https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14&lat=53.84093&lon=-1.32896 shows the bridleways west of Towton. IF you added "designation=public_bridleway" and "designation=public_footpath" tags along with prow_ref it'd show those too, like here: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=18&lat=53.830389&lon=-1.38802 .

Do people really refer to relation/5441968 as "Western Sahara"? I'd have thought that that was always used to refer to the whole area relation/2559126 instead.
Best Regards,
Andy

Is node/6537664948 really a shop=boat? It seems unlikely...

Hello,
If you're adding a definitive footpath reference number, then "prow_ref" is the tag to use. That way people will know whether it has really got a name or not, and things that display prow_ref can do so.
Also, if it's a public footpath I'd also add "designation=public_footpath" and "foot=yes".
Best Regards,
Andy

I didn't actually change the Castle Museum site relation here.

The car park that was at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1eC9 has been changed to sixe street-side parking areas such as way/362953230 , but I'm not sure that either is correct - the western part looks like street-side parking but the eastern part around the parking aisle looks like a surface card park?

Also a bit of the water is from survey (near the road). Farmland has also been nudged to a logical edge based on Bing imagery.

Hello,
If this is a former golf course not a current one, please don't add things like way/1015849559 that make it look like a current course.
Best Regards,
Andy

> You say that the comment is "misleading" while it exactly describes the edit (all changes were about surface=u _obvious_ typo).

Your changeset comment here is actually "fix invalid tagging (surface=u) ". That does not say anything along the lines of "I inferred gravel for way x because way y, which it is connected to, is also gravel". it also does not explain the many other changes (including tag removals) here.

@grin If you believe that "surface=gravel" (rather than, say, grass or ground) can be inferred from context please make a small change with a description that includes that context, not (as here) a worldwide change with a misleading comment (surface=u).
It would also help to explain to some of the users of the "odd" tags what has happened (as I've done with a couple of "Earthen") ones

Привет и добро пожаловать в OpenStreetMap!

Не могли бы вы объяснить, какой у вас источник для ваших дополнений? Я уверен, что добавленные вами имена не видны на аэрофотоснимках.

С уважением,
Энди

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Can you please explain what your source for your additions is? I'm sure that the names that you have added are not visible on aerial imagery.

Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Back in changeset/27640524 we talked about using meaningful changeset comments.
Unfortunately, a comment of "fix area" doesn't really help anyone to understand what change you made, or what source you used.
Best Regards,
Andy

There are a few 50/50 calls in here. For example, way/15252260/history might be "ground" or "gravel".

@grin Even worse, this changeset isn't just "fix invalid tagging (surface=u) " - it contains a mixture of "just removing tags you don't understand" (wrong for all the reasons described above) and "reasonable guesses about what the original mapper meant" such as "surface=as" -> "surface=asphalt". I've rolled that latter ones forward again in changeset/115466850 .

The comment here should have been:
Reapplying a surface=as -> surface=asphalt change that was hidden in the tag deletions in changeset/113327203

and the source:
Previous OSM data.

For context, see the discussion on changeset/113327203 .