For the benefit of anyone else looking at this changeset, I've asked slice0 what evidence there is https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/165672226 should be secondary rather than tertiary.
I've also suggested in fairly strong terms that slice0#s attitude to the rest of the Au community needs to change (see e.g. the profile text and diary entries at @slice0/diary ).
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

Is the name on e.g. way/47264259/history correct? The loc_ref and name are both letters, but different.

For info I've asked about the provenance of this data at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-data-source-falkland-islands/107317 .

Hello,
Just for info, I've changed the "historic=churchyard cross" at node/9700823427 here to "historic=cross" . Searching https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values for "cross" doesn't find a better option (except maybe something like "memorial"?).
It was the only example.
Hope you don;t mind (and any other questions, please ask!)
Best Regards,
Andy

The changeset selection was "user_id = '5008136' and tags -> 'comment' like 'shop=estate_agent -> office=estate_agent #maproulette%';" - sorry if any other changes got caught up. I did notice way/327309216/history which I guess might be an estate agent rather than just a property company office (and you're more likely to know than me).

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 10(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/191593922 (and also on another change too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 4 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/777209203 (and also on another change too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 6(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/507631409 (and also on another change too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 7(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/228759987 (and also on a couple of other changes too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 10(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/248314290 (and also on a couple of other changes too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/409026688 . We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Thanks!

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 10(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/10332802 . We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 12(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/94254996 . We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks!

Hello,
way/67154667 is "ford=level_crossing". Is that a typo for something else?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
"mixed_but_generally_visible" isn't a common "trail_visibility" value. Would you say that "intermediate" would work here, or perhaps "good"?
Best Regards,
Andy

I'm guessing that the board node/412486673/history is back? It is currently both "tourism" and "disused:tourism" :)