I'm guessing perhaps residential not reservoir :)

Was that based on a visit or something? I see you changed Castle Howard to a castle too: way/35902933/history . That changeset says that it's adding a wikidata link, but even its wikipedia page says its not a castle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Castle%20Howard?uselang=en-GB .

Hello,
What was the logic for changing Chatsworth House into a castle here?
Best Regards,
Andy

RE relation/13803250/history ("defensive_works=reduit") I think that, despite what wikipedia says, the more common English word is for this is "redoubt" despite (like many of these words) it being borrowed from other European languages. This is the original sense from which "national redoubt" (which wikipedia does know about) was derived. See e.g. way/1221451048 ("Redoubt Fortress"), and it's also worth a look through https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1079/pg1079-images.html#chap01 . One of the characters there is a veteran of the Nine Years War, so you'll find counterscarps and redoubts galore, but no "reduit".

To visualise the changes in this changeset, see https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=145504664 . There, where way/634493386/history was deleted can be seen https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Fo1 . However, the Bing imagery doesn't show any track there.

Hello tuazazh,

Please don't make disputed political edits without prior discussion. Please discuss at the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/ before doing so in future. If you have any comments please email them to the Data Working Group at data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2023122910000031] tuazazh".

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, from the DWG

For info, see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-data-source-falkland-islands/107317/6

Are you sure that this is an actual shop and not just a work-from-home business (with nothing displayed outside)? I've never noticed it, but then I haven't walked down this bit of 5th Avenue for a while.

For the avoidance of doubt - this edit does not mean that any particular political view of "who controls what" here is correct - it merely reverts some political edits made after a warning to the situation beforehand.
The claims here (both legal and based on de-facto occupation) are very complicated, but a discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/ is surely the best way forward.

Hello,
Just wondered what "ruins=service" on way/1156063404 was? way/944405134 is another one.
Best Regards,
Andy

... and a furniture factory on the other side of the planet :)

Hello windblewer,
Please don't make disputed political edits without prior discussion. Please does at the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/ before doing so in future. If you have any comments please email them to the Data Working Group at data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2023122910000031] windblewer".
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, from the DWG

Hello,
Please don't map things that don't exist like this. I've deleted them in changeset/145641098 .
Best Regards,
Andy

@Oha80 Törölte a way/634493386/history oldalt. Meg tudod magyarázni, hogy miért?

@Oha80 You did delete way/634493386/history . Can you explain why?

Should way/397538519 have been methane_pumping_station (not "methan")? Is anything still there?

Also ts0497b

I suspect that some of these are settlement first; defensive second, and some (I'm thinking of some of the more extreme promontory forts) are the other way around.
It's definitely worth someone having a think about the tree of other tags associated with "historic" and especially "historic=archaeological_site", because as it stands things are a bit confusing.
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L7126-L7290 currently covers how I'm handling it, but I bet filling in more details in some cases (such as the civilization for settlements) would be really helpful.

Hello,
I'm guessing that way/1135419642 should perhaps be "designation=public_footpath"?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
By changing this from the tag that people knew about to one that they don't it means that features like this disappear off maps again (or rather - see http://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/54.37823/-1.96709 - fall back to be shown as a generic archaeological site).

Obviously these sorts of things becoming more known as defended settlements (often constructed in a "look at me" kind of way). They are very definitely still "defended fortifications" as well as settlements though.

Is it really too much to ask that rendering-breaking tag changes like this are at least mentioned somewhere first? https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/general/tagging/70 or maybe https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/tagging/71 would be a good place to mention it; you can also contact any advertised data consumers from e.g. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/archaeological_site#projects - if you click through to the project from there you'll be able to e.g. raise a github issue.
Best Regards,
Andy