@DaveD Does OutdoorActive route down "highway=footway; foot=yes; access=private"? If it doesn't, that's a bug, and it'd be great if you could badger them to fix it. If not, I'd suggest stopping using that app because it is just broken.

@Pink Duck Can you please give an example of a way that was adversely affected by this change where mapping that was correct "on the ground" is now incorrect?
So far I'm aware of basically two sorts of cases in the list below - ones like way/723570831/history where the original access=private was surely a cockup, - something looked private, but technical actually isn't, and ones like way/1054074314/history which is a different sort of cockup - a "private" tag looks like it got left over from splitting the way. Maybe the error in this second one is with the highway tag not the access one, but either way I don't see how information is really lost here.

Hello,
Just to let you know, I've joined up the North Cheshire Way here like this:
relation/63113#map=18/53.28762/-2.72493
I hope that is correct.
If you're familiar with the area, perhaps you know how it should get across some of the other gaps that can be seen at http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=63113 ?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Just wondered if the deletion of Derryduff More townland here was deliberate (you can see where it was at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1lMC ). The changeset description just says "updated" so it's difficult to tell whether it shouldn't have been there in the first place or was deleted by accident.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Is protect_class=2 correct for relation/10609122 ? Normally that's used for National Parks, I think: protect%20class=2?uselang=en-GB .
Cheers,
Andy

Thanks.
Since there has been conflict about names here previously, perhaps you could add a few words here explaining why the names here are correct?
It would give us something to refer to in future.

Hello HKHikerhang,

You've deleted the peak node/8781290893/history . This seems odd - peaks don't normally disappear! How does that relate to the changeset comment here 'Change to "old_name" for those names not commonly use nowadays'?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks for reverting. We'll keep an eye on the "mapper" who did that this time.

I'd definitely suggest asking the people who actually added the tag. There are 1400+ examples here; you must be able to find someone who added the tag who is still mapping.

> Would reintroducing the tag add benefit to the OSM database?

If it actually meant something to the original mapper, yes - even if it's not a great way to express whatever that concept was.

Without that level of investigation this is just an undiscussed automated edit and liable to be reverted.

What did the original mapper(s) hope to indicate by the use of this tag?

tourism=camp_site does indeed say "A tourism=camp_site may be ... A backcountry area with little to no facilities...", but that does not mean that everywhere where it is physically legal and/or convenient to pitch a tent is a "tourism=camp_site". It certainly isn't called "close to loch ness" either - that is just a description of where it is.

> How otherwise do I mark good ,flat places for pitching a tent,often with a fireplace ?

As a bookmark within Organic Maps, perhaps?
Best Regards,
Andy

@martien-176 For the avoidance of doubt, you're writing this in a discussion of a changeset on the OpenStreetMap platform. If some other project can make use of that - great, but please don't assume that work here is being done exclusively for your organiaation.

You can add a description with the description tag - whether Organic Maps (or any other data consumer) does anything with it is up to them

Have a look at osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only in the wiki.

For info, I've also added "name:en=Scotland" to the label node in changeset/125811786 .

Hello blacklinkin,
Please don't make up names for things, or just use descriptions.
way/1009710756 doesn't look like a real name.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello blacklinkin,
It looks like the nodes that you've added here such as node/9983571919 aren't camp sites at all in the OSM sense - they are just somewhere ad-hoc that you pitched a tent.
For details of where it is appropriate to add camp sites, see tourism=camp%20site?uselang=en-GB .

Best Regards,

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

Hello "stop edit",
way/1091806470 doesn't look like a secondary road, and isn't join any other roads. Please do try and be a little bit more careful.
Also, please try and use better changeset comments rather than just "add".
Best Regards,
Andy

No worries - I'll change it to the same as the bit to the east and add to the relevant relations.

Hello chriswarsash, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Just a quick question about way/1089645635 - can people on bikes use it? I suspect that the answer is "yes" because otherwise there'd be a gap in this long distance bike route: relation/13725899#map=17/50.83537/-1.27710 .
Currently this is a "highway=footway" (that will have been assigned based on whatever you searched for in the editor. If it's designed for use by bikes (as well as people on foot) then highway=cycleway might work; if it's designed for use by horses (also as well as people on foot) then perhaps highway=bridleway.
Best Regards,
Andy

Re the border dispute, what you seem to be saying is "Country A has invaded part of Country B and occupies it. The part of Country B that is occupied by Country A should be shown as part of Country A in OSM".
I'd suggest that there's scope for wider discussion of exactly what the current status is here. Good places to discuss this might be the main talk mailing list or perhaps community.openstreetmap.org/ . Changeset discussions are great for inter-mapper discussions (like the buildings above), but not where you want the wider community involved, as I suspect you do here. Changeset comments ending in 307 question marks are unlikely to be taken seriously.