Hi
Did you mean to delete this house?
way/924860828/history#map=19/51.37782/-2.37765

You could have replaced it with the correct URL.

Hi
FYI, If updating any future station platforms to polygons, could you split them as shown:
way/1219751769

& also remove the existing linear platform.

Hi
Have you contacted Organic Maps?

Hi
Thanks for that.
Welcome to OSM.

Do you know if this bin is still there?
https://snipboard.io/W9eGjK.jpg

Hi
node/7342101#map=14/51.1833/-2.2273

These should be bus stops. The 'train' is on pneumatic tyres with no track, Could you update them please.

Please don't introduce inaccuracies into the OSM database.

Overpass.

My concern isn't with quantity or how they were added, but quality.

brand:wikipedia is a useful tag for filtering businesses to check name spelling. There's no direct duplication.

Seeing as the Wikipedia tags are all in the UK, including the en tags seems appropriate.

Unsure what you mean by "In order to get the same article in another language, you'd need to go via wikidata anyway." as the different languages are listed on the wikipedia sidebar.

Wikidata does not duplicate Wikipedia data. It is completely separate. If information is added/removed in either it doesn't update the other.

As no reason for removing Wikipedia tags has been given, I'll be reverting shortly.

Again, doesn't explain the need to remove Wikipedia.
-----
Still unsure what you mean by "they're not linking to an article in a specific language.".

That doesn't explain the need to remove the Wikipedia tag.
-----
How do I set the default language in Wikidata? At the moment I have to scroll all the way to the bottom, past all the excessive white & & unfilled boxes.

In Wikipedia the language selection is at the top.

What is the purpose of the edit?
What is wrong with brand:wikipedia?

I'd prefer to see the removal of wikidata tags whose pages are a poorly laid out hotchpotch of non information. Many appear to have been created solely so they be added to OSM.

You've misread the sign. & misunderstood the situation. It's attached to an *open* gate. The footpath you claim to be a bridleway is behind it. It only has kissing gate access

https://snipboard.io/QZFqRJ.jpg

The actual permissive bridleway is this one:
way/44639014

If permissive, then you should use the permissive_bridleway tag:

designation=*#Permissive_Paths

If so, it would great if you could update the barriers.

What evidence do you have of that? Did you take a photo?

It's designated as a footpath on the latest BathNES data & the barriers were all kissing gates when I last walked it.

Hi
What evidence have you that this is a bridleway?

Hi
It would be useful if you could correct that misinformation on the forum to prevent it happening to others.

This is also a duplicate.
node/11222291400#map=19/51.53686/-0.12787

You clearly not checked at all. This changeset requires reversion.