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"....

No, please don't overlay closed ways onto other features (walls, fences. etc) - it makes it very hard to select the correct way to edit, and tends to end up with users adding nodes to one of the ways and getting them out of sync. A principle of data normalisation is to not duplicate information in a way that can get out of sync - if a wall performs the function of a boundary, then it should _be_ the boundary.

I do see your point about changing land usage, and that's a cogent argument for maintaining separate relations per field.

I'm hoping we can produce the best of our combined work, as we have both spent multiple hours editing this area, and it would be a shame to lose it.

I do see now that the later-removed ways that missed the first pass (under the walls rather than above them) were differently tagged - I'll fix those up immediately.

If you think there should be a separate relation for each field, go ahead and split them up. But they were not tagged differently as you claim - I was very careful to only include identically tagged areas in this relation and in the others.

I actually fixed it once before, but it got broken again since then.

Lots of ways containing same nodes. Completely unnormalised.

Yes it was broken, as shown on OSM Inspector.

way/1361517067 was used as outer by relation/18732621. This change broke that relation. Can you reinstate or otherwise repair the relation? Thanks.

Are Blea Water and Small Water really not part of the RSPB nature reserve? I've added note/5193052 so perhaps you could add your evidence there.

No, it's open again. Fixed in changeset/172915647.