Also 66 and WoR cycle routes between Dunnington and York

Just wondered - should way/1102802561 be part of the Greensand Way route? It seems to be not connected to anything (found via http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=57416 ).

With regards to how to tag things like way/932001604/history , there's a fair bit of usage of man_made=ventilation_shaft and railway=ventilation_shaft - see http://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe:britain-and-ireland/search?q=ventilation_shaft#values .

Thanks. Suppose a "new user" appears (who is in reality the same "spam" user, but with a different email address). What will you do to verify that the things that they suggest actually exist, as opposed to being made-up names?

Thanks - what evidence was provided in this vase?

Thanks - I've found a dozen or so so far (most of https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1H3d ). I'll try and scan the QR codes on the bus stops to see if I can find any way to "translate" the incorrect ones. Some are, I'm sure, just old data.

I'm not sure how it happened, but quite a few of the ones added for York here were wrong. An example was node/2466092653/history , where that naptan code is actually for node/2527494752 , which you can verify via http://deps.at/?32900260 .

Alas - tracking of feedback from this user did not prevent further fiction being added in changeset/146852127 .
What sources do you use to verify requests to change names such as here?
Clearly we want to avoid a situation where the easy way to get vandalism into OSM is to "ask Mapbox to add it".

Thanks for fixing this item of data. More generally, could you answer the rest of the question - what sources do you use to verify requests to change names such as here?
This has happened before in changeset/131420795 . Clearly we want to avoid a situation where the easy way to get vandalism into OSM is to "ask Mapbox to add it".

Hello,
Andy from the DWG here. We've had a report of fake names getting added here.
What sources did you verify the user's request to change names here?
This ian't the first time that users have tried to add fake names to OSM via this mechanism.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Why did you remove railway=abandoned from way/32558406/history ? It's adding valuable data to the cycleway here.
I've also removed the fantasy duplicates such as your extension of way/754132188 . I actually added all this from on the ground survey 4 years ago and you've made a complete mess of it.
Hopefully I still have my original survey data and will be able to recreate what you have destroyed.

Thanks again!

Thanks!

@AzteCartographer - as you can see from https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/828673565 , the tagging of this has been all over the place. Rather than just changing it back and forth, perhaps post a photo in a thread at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 so that other people can say what they think. If you're correct about the tagging, people will agree with you.

Hello,
I wouldn't worry too much about "official" names. I suspect that the "standard" practice that you mention didn't in all cases originate in those countries themselves. There certainly are cases where widely used languages aren't official, for historical regions.
Maybe discuss in the OSM forum or more generally with the communities locally?
Best Regards,
Andy

Are you sure about farmyard for way/131423194 ? It looks a bit of a stretch, given the picture.

The wiki unfortunately is subject to "the last editor" adding their interpretation; it doesn't necessarily imply consensus.
"The globally accepted tag for recording the largest settlement in an address" will probably have some support, "(i.e. the "postal town")" significantly less so. I'd suggest that you discuss these edits with the local community via the talk-gb list before continuing.
Another problematic example is way/529770236 . I'm sure that people there would give their address as "Farndale" rather than the tiny hamlet of Church Houses, or York (which isn't the nearest town; it's 34km to Middlesbrough and 59km to York).

I wouldn't read too much into the postcode - that is just to do with how a particular company chose to automate delivery of post; it doesn't really have any bearing on where places are legally or where the people that live there think they are.
For example, where I used to live the postcode was actually for a city in a different county (and not the nearest county - one further away than that!)

I am not convinced that this is correct. For example https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/125736027 is not in York; it's nowhere near. It's been in 3 or 4 different subdivisions since 1973 or so; it's now in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yorkshire_Council which is a unitary authority, and in terms of ceremonial counties also North Yorkshire, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_counties_of_England .

Hello,
What was the "lat/lon experiment with Bus Stop"?
Best Regards,
Andy