There's a somewhat related issue over at way/452149130 - there two areas of scrub have exactly adjacent nodes, rather than sharing nodes. Different OSM editors show this in different ways, and you can also see it in external sites such as http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=17&lat=51.68592&lon=-5.00745&layers=B0T&ch=0%2C191%2C194%2C195%2C196%2C201%2C204%2C205%2C206%2C313%2C20&show_ign=0&show_tmpign=0 .
Hope you don't mind me mentioning this, just trying to help.
Any questions please don't hesitate to ask.

Oops - not sure what happened here, but way/451599026/history was an exact duplicate of way/451596760/history - I've deleted one of them.

Actually, I don't remember a caravan site (residential or otherwise) south of the Horse and Groom at way/453771882 . My guess is that it's just caravan storage.
I suspect that the new mapper is local (I tried to contact them in changeset/43703674 - no reply yet) so they might know.

Please don't try and add spam data to OpenStreetMap. You added node/4509975284/history in a place that didn't match the postcode and dragged the traffic lights
node/2726838583/history off to the east.
You're welcome to add verifiable businesses to OpenStreetMap , but if you continue to add misplaced and spammy data you'll be prevented from making further edits.

Ah - OK. I'd definitely delete the amenity=tourism tag though.
Also - normally things in OSM have capital letters for proper names, so perhaps "Statua di San Michele"?

Thanks - is it actually a statue? If so, I'd map it as a statue (perhaps in addition to the viewpoint).

Note that the tag https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=tourism is almost never used - those 37 will be mistakes.

Hello, GioalbaF
What is an "amenity=tourism" supposed to be?
In order to see how statues are mapped, you can use taginfo:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=statue#values
Best Regards,
Andy

@Yorvik Prestigitator I'm guessing this is just a MAPS.ME duplicate of one of the existing hotels here - personally I'd just delete it as the mapper hasn't replied within 10 days.

Hello - I notice you're back and mapping again - would it be possible to answer the question above?
Best Regards,
Andy

@nammala Do you want me to restore it and add a note, or are you going to?

Also it would appear that there hasn't even been a cursory glance given to the data being changed here - the name:en typo in relation/6607714 would have been obvious if there had have been.

Before continuing to add wikidata worldwide, may I respectfully suggest you try and address the issues introduced in changeset/43749373 ?

No problem - I've moved it back by reverting the original "move to null island" changeset. It's now back in Italy: node/4505868690/history

Thanks - I'm sure that the post will be approved shortly.

Hello,
Please don't add test data to the live OpenStreetMap Server. If you want a test server, perhaps http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ would work for you?
Best Regards,
Andy

Re "Do we really want to link to both is an open question" it would probably make sense not to link to either if the thing that you're linking from in OSM is something else entirely. To be honest, I'm still struggling understand what I asked at the top - "what you're actually trying to do here". Can you explain why (in the case of Dunham-on-Trent) you've linked the civil parish relation to the village entry in wikidata but not the village node to anything?
To answer the question of how to query for multiple relations with the same wikidata entry, it might be worth starting with taginfo http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/wikidata#values . The first 857 pages have more that one item with a value. To see duplication in an area, select a value and click the overpass link to see the things that have that value.

Hello,
You've added a "landuse=forest" tag to relation/1447414#map=15/47.9626/-120.2074 - is that really correct? The relation is "Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest" i.e. it's a protected area - a "National Forest" in US terms, but that doesn't necessarily imply landuse=forest in OSM.

Thanks - the Administrative Derbyshire's wikidata link looks OK (the sv:wikipedia page looks a bit rubbish, but we'll gloss over that - a wikipedia problem, not an OSM issue).
As things currently stand I don't think relation/957520 and relation/957519 have a wikidata entry at all - arguably they should be one relation in OSM. The wikidata entry https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2876117 actually claims to be for a village (not a civil parish), even though it was created from a wikipedia page that was for both "a village and civil parish ". Most of the civil parish ones in this changeset look similarly wrong; for example relation/957808 is Dunham on Trent civil parish, the wikipedia link is for "a village and civil parish" and the wikidata entry is for a "village in United Kingdom". To be clear, the village node/1782116865 and civil parish relation/957808 are different entities in OSM; I'd expect them to have different entities in wikidata too, and I'd expect you to need to create the relevant entities in wikidata before linking to them.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I think that a couple of things have gone wrong though - way/453771893/history certainly wasn't all building, when I last drove past.
Also, are you sure that you can get into the Horse and Groom car park from the south?
Cheers,
Andy

Hi,
Thanks for tidying, but any reason you deleted this rather than moving it back to its previous location in Italy?
Cheers,
Andy