OK, I understand. It's just a bit misleading for anyone walking around expecting a castle! And OSM isn't meant to map temporary/personal things like ownership anyway, so I'll revert.

This looks like vandalism - there is nothing on the aerial photo. Can you give a good reason why this shouldn't be reverted?

Please use the address tags as previously advised - e.g. addr:housenumber=* addr:housename=*. "99" is not a name
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112807209

Hi there. I suggest you map addresses with the tags in addr=* rather than using the name=x tags, as this is usually to show named buildings, e.g. office blocks or public buildings.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112391756

Hi there, welcome to OSM.

just a note to say I'm not sure you should be adding "Byway" to the name of these byways. This is normally reserved for byways (or any other feature) which has an actual name. I can appreciate that you might not necessarily be able to see from the main map that this track is a byway as only the track itself is rendered. However, OSM is primarily a data repository and the map is a representation of that data. Given UK Rights of Way are relatively niche in the grand scheme of things but important in the UK, there are different renders focusing on that - e.g. see https://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/#

You could also look at osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_Rights_of_Way for specific guidance.

I would consider tagging Marshcroft Lane as a track rather than a road. I don't know this route, but if the road is not surfaced this is usually how to do it, although you can also tag as highway=unclassified and surface=unpaved. I would say highway=track implies less likely to be used by motor vehicles, more likely to be private etc, whereas highway=unclassified implies a public, metalled road. Other tags can clarify this though, but on the map highway=track are rendered like this way/23713498 as opposed to looking like roads as your new way does.

All of this is open to debate though.

Happy Mapping!

Stephen

Hey, thanks for your contribution.

Just a note to say that a slightly better way of doing this would be to not delete the object and add a new one, but move the nodes of the object to the right position. This is quicker and also means that the history of the object is maintained with a single ID

Definitely not a working farm here - used to be once, but just houses now..

Thanks for getting back to me. Only a few editors (gods!) usually do the reverting although in practice anyone can run the script. The only way to know is to look at the way history, or probably easier look at a tool like OSM Cha (see link above).

I guess some people like mapping trees (OK I'll admit it, I am one of them) although the chances of getting every tree in the DB seem minimal to say the least! I think everyone has their tics though, so generally is the mantra is create, modify if you need and improve, but don't delete unless it's misleading or just plain wrong.

Hello!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements
that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me
to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.org/ to get started.
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55356190

Hello!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements
that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me
to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.org/ to get started.
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55356040

Are you sure of the ownership boundary? The object before you changed it had been sourced from an OS dataset, so it is "official"

Again, why is a wood "unnecessary". Please consult with people before you remove a significant amount of their work like that.

What do you mean by "removing unnecessary trees"? Just be careful when removing things - you should only remove something if it's not there, not because you don't think it should be on the map, at least when you are starting out on OSM..

Looks bad to me too - can't find any reference to "Eagle and Beth's" in that location in London

Sorry, wrong person - looks like the spam was added earlier

This changeset needs to be reverted as it's spam

This, and many other changesets from the user appears to be erroneuous advertising information. I have also sent the user a message

Welcome to OSM!

You need to be careful what you are editing - you have edited things in Wilmslow, Bucks, UK as well as Tanzania, which I guess might not be what you intended to do. This will have to be reverted back, so please try to be a bit more careful, and if you don't understand something, ask on the mailing list, or other support channels available at osm.wiki