Thanks for the heads-up - seems to have already been fixed by another user.

I figured it had to be something like that, rather than user error. Thanks for the reply, and good luck with your app!

There are still two nodes with natural=coastline: node/14170742149 (Tasiisap Paava) and node/14170742266 (Itillip Illuata Paa). OSM Inspector reports these: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=coastline&lon=317.82537&lat=58.78564&zoom=7&baselayer=OSM%20Carto%20(OSMF)&opacity=0.50&overlays=coastline_error_lines%2Cline_not_a_ring%2Cline_overlap%2Cline_invalid%2Cline_direction%2Cquestionable%2Ccoastline_error_points%2Cunconnected%2Cintersections%2Cnot_a_ring%2Cdouble_node%2Ctagged_node

A lot of these ways seem to self-intersect (see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-6.55311&lat=53.38958&zoom=16&overlays=intersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cways). What went wrong here? Do you need help editing?

No response, so I've removed the excess ways.

I think I created way/1256861290 by splitting it from the end of way/707966338 when I couldn't find evidence for it on maps. I then traced way/1256861287 as replacement, but wasn't confident enough to delete the old way. I believe it can be deleted, but wanted to include you (@gurglypipe) as you appear to have originated that and might know its origins.

In terms of my sources - I've used mapping also from NLS, most usefully the six-inch maps from around 1900 or so.

Is that the fixmes on way/707966336 and way/1256861290? I see that those are not part of the relation and possibly should be removed altogether. If you have local knowledge, then you're much better placed than I am to make corrections - please go ahead and fix what you can!

You might want to also consult with user "gurglypipe" (last editor of most of the nodes of those ways).

The relation is completely invalid, with lots of outer polygons enclosed by the site's outer boundary - see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-3.21831&lat=56.18021&zoom=17&baselayer=OSM%20Carto%20(OSMF)&opacity=0.45&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways for an analysis. Are you able to fix these errors?

If you want to route outlines via coasts rather than straight-line paths, go ahead and do that.

It's a long time since OSM included only physical features. Or we'd have to delete all the county boundaries, nature reserves, marine protected areas, offshore boundaries and the rest, and move all of them to separate databases as seems to be advocated here.

Not an import - just hand-created using points from http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/tempusfugit/marine/area_coord.htm

Because it has four ways for the edges. Prior to that, the forest polygon was incorrect because it had inner ways sharing segments with outer ways, as revealed on OSM Inspector: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-3.63308&lat=52.17509&zoom=16&baselayer=OSM%20Carto%20(OSMF)&opacity=0.45&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

(Should have read "new to", not "now to" - sorry for any confusion!)

Moving the areas wouldn't be correct, as aerial photos show that they do in fact overlap (on different layers). I'm now to type=building relations, so perhaps misunderstood how it's supposed to be used (the amenity tag came from previous version of relation, but I guess it should be applied to the whole site rather than the building?)

Thanks - I've reinstated the lost tags. The building needed to be polygon as its two outlines are bounds of other polygons.

Fixed - thanks.

I wasn't sure whether the B&B was the whole row or not, so made the simplest change. Thanks for using your knowledge to complete the job!

Actually, that was simple enough to retrieve from history, so I have just done it.

West Lodge relation still has multiple housenames - shouldn't they be on the individual buildings instead? And building type, too?

Renders are only a small part of OSM of course (though widely used). There's a lot that renders well that you or I would not consider high quality!

As I said, if you want an individual relation for each field, go ahead and split the areas - I do see the value in making it simple to change landuse on a field-by-field basis.

You wouldn't be undoing the other improvements I hope? Such as the additional inner ways where woodland and water bodies interrupt the heath.

In terms of usability with multiple ways, I can deal with that (usually with a temporary node to pull part of the overlying way aside to reveal what's hidden), but the evidence is that many contributors don't seem able to do that and they end up introducing inconsistencies unnecessarily. Of course, you do have a point that those same people have a tendency to remove ways from relations then add a replacement to only a subset of the affected parents, so it does seem to be a case of "swings and roundabouts"....