See also note/3614396

Re "OSM wiki say that the key:natural should not be used on relations" - which wiki page says that?

Hello,
The same questions as always:
1) What actual tag changes did you make here (I'm assuming there was no survey involved)
2) Where did you discuss this? I only see reference to archaeological sites at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/implementation-of-new-tagging-scheme-of-archaeological-site/7850/39 and osm.wiki/Automated_edits/ChillyDL#values_affected .

Bonjour Olion,
Merci de ne pas utiliser de commentaires de changeset tels que "Corrigé avec Osmose". Sans aucune information sur ce que vous avez changé ou sur la source que vous avez utilisée.
Osmose n'est qu'une suggestion de choses sur lesquelles vous devrez peut-être enquêter; ce n'est pas une indication d'erreur.
Cordialement,
Andy

Hello Olyon,
Please do not use changeset comments such as "Corrigé avec Osmose". With no information about what it was that you changed or what source you used.
Osmose is merely a suggestion of things that you may need to investigate; it is not an indication of an error.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I've just had a chance to check again, and the noticeboard at osm.org/#map=19/53.98187/-1.06898 still has a note on it saying that it's operated by St John's University. My guess is that they own all the land there (it used to belong to Rowntree's / Nestle). There are no parcel boundaries between there are the sports field.
It's not a park as such, but public access is permitted. There is a sign saying that it has not been dedicated for public access, so it's "permissive" not "yes" access.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I think a couple of things went wrong here. One was that the Chiltern Hills AONB had a gap in it. You can just about see this at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1sRF (although that does join the gap up). I've fixed that in changeset/134103405 .
The other thing was that the school somehow got a "building" tag applied to the whole area. I've removed that in changeset/134103507 .
I hope this is all OK - any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy

Is the tagging for this Ogham stone OK? It's currently
historic=The_Long_Stone
name=Ogham Stone
which seems unlikely to be correct?
It'd be nice if it could appear like https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#25/51.76409/-10.12187 , but for that to happen it needs some tags that say "this is an Ogham Stone".
Cheers,
Andy

Thanks

Just one more thing - "source=knowledge" doesn't really explain what the source was.
If you've surveyed the area and have information from that, using "source=survey". If you're using imagery as well (and I would expect that everyone will), please mention that too.

Again, "maxweight korrigiert" as a comment does not help anyone.
What do you think you are correcting here and on what evidence are you changing it?
Is it based on survey? Mapillary? Some other evidence that the restriction here is no longer a maxweightrating one?

Hello,
In what way was this a "tag mismatch"? The maxweight=* explicitly mentions maxweightrating=* and links to that page.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hi Derick,
Apologies for an "ancient hstory" question - just wondered if you had any idea whether the "Da Daniela" restaurant here is still "bring your own wine"? The restaurant got moved to a node node/6703856105 and then the bring your own wine tag was removed from the building as you can see at https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/123186015 .
Cheers,
Andy

Hello willisturm,
Is the restaurant here node/6703856105 still "bring your own wine"? You removed that tag from https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/123186015 here. If it is, I'd have expected the previous mapper to have moved it, but if they forgot to do that you just removing the tag here doesn't improve the quality of OSM at all, it just makes it harder to detect problems.
If you did check, then obviously it would help to say that in the changeset comment. "tag mismatch" does not help anyone.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend,
On behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello Willi,
Andy here - from OSM's Data Working Group (and coincidentally also a Peak and Northern Footpath Society member).
Perhaps it would help if you could explain what you thought that you were changing here, and why you changed it - in particular why "memorial:conflict= fits better here"?
The DWG have had complaints about a number of the changes you've made, and it'd be really helpful to have an explanation from you.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Just for info - I think that this change might have accidentally introduced a gap in the edge of the East Devon AONB - I've filled that in by adding the "newly split" bit of road to the boundary in changeset/134031649 .
Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
I think that this changeset might have inadvertantly introduced a gap in the Vangiard Way - I've filled that in in changeset/133985297 .
Cheers,
Andy

Please see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf for how disputed territories are handled in OSM.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Another user has restored it, but it looks like you accidentally removed a tag from https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/3899605 in this changeset.
If you've got any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy.

Hello,
"fixing value to follow convention tagging schema" doesn't explain what you did or why you did it here. Your actual change ( https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/4627396 ) was to add a wikipedia tag. Why not say what you did in the changeset comment?
Best Regards,
Andy