Hello DaveF,
You've changed natural=sand to surface=sand on way/996018658/history here. In leisure=golf_course it actually says "Recommended to also tag with surface=sand or natural=sand", so I don't understand on what basis you are making the "sand" changes here?
As you've suggested at changeset/112997540 a more general discussion of this tagging makes sense; perhaps talk-gb would be a good place to start since these changes of yours have been restricted to GB.
Best Regards,
Andy

(in addition)

> Why did you not read that?

For the avoidance of doubt, I have read that - in fact I remember the tagging and rendering discussions prior to the "surface=sand" change, numerous other "should the wiki lead tagging or merely reflect it" discussions, and the discussions about how editors such as iD show what tags are in use, and the specific iD issue that you opened https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8748 , with all the comments there, (and numerous other similar ones around "should iD lead tagging common practice or follow it"). To summarise, I have read it.

More generally, making comments like this (and numerous others visible at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=115894 and elsewhere) is completely out of order.

Please read https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Etiquette (and osm.wiki/Talk:Etiquette#History_of_the_Etiquette_Page ). It's been OSMF policy since 2011.

Your comments here and elsewhere fall quite a way short of what is expected of all of us in things like "Assume good faith". This has a couple of effects - one is that people won't want to ask your opinion or advice, or discuss things with you, because (to quote one person) any discussion was "probably going to be a waste of my time" because you are (to quote another) "gratuitously rude". The other effect is that people will be reluctant to support you even when you're correct in your analysis of how things are normally done in OSM.

Please do try and remember that the people that you're discussing things with are actually people, and that their goal (improving OSM) is the same as yours. It's in everyone's interest, including yours, to discuss things calmly and to listen to other people's point of view especially when, as here, both views have some validity.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, from OSM's Data Working Group.

(with regard to the "tagging" comments above)

> Please clarify what theses "one scheme" & "other scheme" are?

By that I simply meant "what you're changing from" and "what you're changing to".

> In what way are you claiming this edit reduces the quality of the OSM database?

I've not made any suggestion that your series of changes here makes OSM "better" or "worse", although some of the complaints that the DWG have received, and some of the comments at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=115894 , clearly think that it is making it worse.

> please feel free to start a topic on any forum that keeps a record of posts & is accessible to all

I think that that is the best way forward (I've already suggested it in response to a couple of recent complaints the DWG has had about these edits).
Best Regards,
Andy (from the Data Working Group)

Здравствуйте Михаил1412,
Все ваши недавние комментарии к набору изменений такие же, как и этот - «Изменение данных». Это не очень полезно - пожалуйста, объясните другим разработчикам OSM немного больше о ваших изменениях - osm.wiki/RU:Good_changeset_comments включает несколько примеров.
С уважением, Энди (из рабочей группы OSM по данным)

Hello Mikhail1412,
All of your recent changeset comments are the same as this one - "Изменение данных". That's not really very helpful - please explain to other OSM mappers a bit more about your changes - osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments includes some examples.
Best Regards, Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)

Hello,
Looking at the available imagery here this bridge appears to be clearly fictional. Can you explain why you added it?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello DaveF,
This appears to be an automated edit to change tags from one tagging scheme to another. Can you please explain where you followed osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct , including discussing it with the local community first? In the case of GB edits, I'd suggest that talk-gb was the best place for that.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I think that way/380542099 might have got extended here which added a spur to the IOW coastal path.
I've snipped it off in changeset/112953889 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here.
For completeness, OSM's policy on names is contained in https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Policies_and_other_Documents .
Generally speaking its up to the local community to decide what's in the "name" tag, and often (as seems to be the case here) translating official guidance into OSM tags isn't straightforward. I'd suggest that a discussion involving the wider OSM NZ community is the way forward. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nz doesn't seem hugely busy, but https://openstreetmap.community/ suggests a couple of "Oceania" options too which may be worth looking at.
For completeness, http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=6411467557 shows the history of the tags on the object.
Best Regards,
Andy

way/3376262 hat immer noch "maxspeed=70mph" drauf.
Bitte entfernen Sie die Typinformationen nicht - verschieben Sie sie stattdessen nach "maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single".
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Andy

way/3376262 still has "maxspeed=70mph" on it.
Please do not remove the type information - move it to "maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single" instead.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
This changeset adds a role "main" to way/41609696 within relation/1581577 and relation/1959386 - I was wondering what that meant?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hallo,
Ich hoffe, es macht Ihnen nichts aus, wenn ich ein paar Fragen stelle - in diesem Änderungssatz haben Sie die Höchstgeschwindigkeit des Kreisverkehrs auf "70mph" eingestellt - das scheint auf einigen Ebenen falsch zu sein - normalerweise ist es üblich, ein Leerzeichen zwischen den Zahl und "mph" (kein großes Problem, aber der Validator von JOSM weist darauf hin).
Die andere ist, dass "70 mph" für etwas unwahrscheinlich erscheint, das zuvor UK:nsl_single (d. h. "60 mph") war?
Normalerweise, wenn etwas innerhalb eines nationalen Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungsbereichs liegt, würde ich sowohl "maxspeed=60 mph" als auch "maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single" hinzufügen, um offensichtlich zu machen, was die tatsächliche Geschwindigkeit ist und wie sie eingestellt wird.
Abschließend noch eine Frage - was bedeutet "source:tooling" im Changeset-Tag?
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Andy

Hello,
I hope you don't mind me asking a couple of questions - in this changeset you've set the maxspeed of the roundabout as "70mph" - that seems wrong on a couple of levels - normally the convention is to have a space between the number and "mph" (not a big issue, but JOSM's vaidator flags it).
The other is that 70 seems unlikely for something that was previously UK:nsl_single (i.e. 60)?
Normally when something is within a national speed limit section I'd add both "maxspeed=60 mph" and "maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single" to make it obvious what the actually speed is and how it is set.
Finally one more question - what does "source:tooling" in the changeset tag?
Best Regards,
Andy

Northwich Community Woodlands relation/63112#map=15/53.2844/-2.5194 could do with looking at. Historically it was https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1cjl at Marbury Country Park. It's now "longer but different". Needs survey.

The source for e.g. the Marbury Country Park section is https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1cjk . Of the two routes through Lyme Valley Park at relation/63113#map=13/53.3374/-2.0451 , the eastern one is the original one, but the western one is also plausible. Needs survey. Gaps to the west also need survey.

@archie - please give people more than 11 minutes to respond before asking the same question again!

@vakal For the avoidance of any doubt, your access was restored immediately you read the message at osm.org/user_blocks/5402 .

@lockdownguy Are you happy that all the trunk road refs that you said that you were going to re-add are correct?
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1cja (from yesterday) shows fewer than https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1cjb (from February).

@lockdownguy please calm down. Repeated accusations of "vandalism!" don't reinforce whatever point you are trying to make.
There is a genuine discussion to be had about what names should be used; NFZANMNIM did the right thing by asking at https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=71448 (and it would have been helpful to mention that at changeset/112279744 too; I've now added that link).
@lockdownguy if you find yourself annoyed by something it often helps to take a break before replying rather than "venting your spleen" via the keyboard. If you make further accusations of vandalism like this where it isn't justified we (the DWG) will have to consider enforcing a break from OSM via a short block.
Re the road reference numbers in Baghdad, I'll comment somewhere more relevant.
Best Regards,
Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)