Hello Bryan, and welcome to OSM!
You've given building a name "edificaciones". That's not the name of the building, and if you don't know the name of the building, you'd don't need to give it one.
Also, please do give your edits more helpful names - perhaps something like "Mapeo de edificios en Los Ríos, Ecuador".
Best Regards,
Andy
PS: Any other questions, please fon't hesitate to ask.

Hello,
What actually are these? The values look very odd.
Best Regards,
Andy

Do you really believe that you corrected a typo in a food value on node/2661655045/history et al?

Merhaba, OpenStreetMap'e hoş geldiniz!
way/1258967120 gerçekten bir park mı? Görüntülerdeki gibi görünmüyor.

Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Is way/1258967120 really a park? It doesn't look like on on the imagery.

These really are signed on the ground as "Burton Green (East)" despite being west of the "Burton Green West" stops.
The websites show buses going west reach this stop a minute after the one labelled "West" to the East.

These really are signed on the ground as "Burton Green West" despite being east of the "Burton Green (East)" stops.
The websites show buses going west reach this stop a minute before one labelled "East" to the West.

Oops, wrong account - should have been done by SomeoneElse2.

Hello,
Please use descriptive chamgeset comments that explain what you actually did, not just hashtags.
It helps other mappers to understand what you have actually done
Best Regards,
Andy

There are two Skegby Trail relations and there probably shouldn't be, but it'd need someone to check the signage to see if the longer version could be "stood up".

I've also fixed a lot of the other former colliery railways that I've walked that are connected over towards Clipstone. There's a lot of duplication still to get rid of - and I suspect a resurvey wouldn't come amiss, since I did most of it around 10 years ago.

As well as the Selby end, I've also walked bits further east.

The story with node/11682589234/history was that I originally added that from survey, and later moved an older one that it was a duplicate of to the correct location.

Hello again,
There is another unnecessary duplicated railway at way/255282533#map=18/53.34431/-1.69862 There is only one feature here and it is both a current multi-use path and former railway.
Your removal of "railway=abandoned" from the trail here is removing valuable data from OSM.
Best Regards,
Andy

Tôi tin rằng tập hợp thay đổi mà bạn hoàn nguyên là một nỗ lực nhằm tạo ra các khu vực "ranh giới=tranh chấp", chẳng hạn như relation/17296617, phù hợp với những gì được viết tại https://osmfoundation.org/ w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf "Chúng tôi đã và sẽ tiếp tục xây dựng các cơ chế
nơi các lựa chọn thay thế có thể được ghi lại và dễ dàng sử dụng trong các bản đồ phù hợp hơn với bạn".
Bạn đã hoàn nguyên nó mà không có bất kỳ cuộc thảo luận nào, điều đó là không ổn.
Tôi nhận thấy rằng một số đối tượng ở đây tại admin_level=4 trở xuống là đối tượng ranh giới=hành chính. Điều đó không có gì bất thường trong OSM; các nước thường tuyên bố “quản lý” những khu vực mà họ không kiểm soát mà chỉ giả vờ là có.
Vui lòng thảo luận vấn đề của bạn với changeset/148136531 et al với tác giả của bộ thay đổi đó một cách văn minh?
Tôi thực sự muốn đề xuất rằng https://community.openstreetmap.org/ là nơi tốt nhất để làm điều đó.

我相信您恢复的变更集是试图创建“boundary=disputed”区域，例如 relation/17296617，与 https://osmfoundation.org/ 上的内容一致 w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf “我们已经并将继续建立机制
可以记录替代方案并在更适合您的地图中轻松使用”。
你没有任何讨论就将其恢复，这是不行的。
我确实注意到，admin_level=4 及以下的一些对象是boundary=administrative 对象。 这在 OSM 中并不罕见。 一些国家常常声称“管理”他们无法控制的地区，但实际上只是假装他们控制了。
请以文明的方式与该变更集的作者讨论您的问题 changeset/148136531 等？
我实际上建议 https://community.openstreetmap.org/ 是最好的地方。

I believe that the changeset that you reverted was an attempt to create "boundary=disputed" areas such as relation/17296617, in line with what is written at https://osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf "We have and will continue to build mechanisms
where alternatives can be recorded and easily used in maps more suitable to you".
You reverted it without any discussion, which isn't OK.
I do notice that some of the objects here at admin_level=4 and below are boundary=administrative objects. That isn't unusual in OSM; countries often claim to "administer" areas that they don't control but only pretend that they do.
Please discuss your problems with changeset/148136531 et al with the author of that changeset in a civilised manner?
I'd actually suggest that https://community.openstreetmap.org/ is the best place to do that.

.. and elsewhere other than Acomb.

Thanks!

Also adding real 20 stops mostly from survey, some from naptan