The buoy (which is what is mapped here in OSM) is not called "null island".

See changeset/126833220 for the revert of the third relation.

See also osm.org/user_blocks/6409 .

node/9634785512 looks a bit unlikely here - does the rest of this changeset look OK?

I'm not sure how it happened, but way/1098017268 seemed to become part of Surrey Hills AONB (7640939) after this - I've removed it in relation/7640939 .

@user_5121 done: changeset/126699855

Great - so that means I can assume that the name of way/300116093/history has been verified on the ground?
The name before your survey was from an unknown (we suspect incompatible) source, but if your survey has validated the name, then the name is OK to keep, as it has been surveyed.

Thanks - I've removed the names in changeset/126609024 .
One more question - some names in changeset/74061896 and changeset/73730163 were changed "prior to Kaart ground survey". Did that survey happen and did it verify the names?

Wrong account used in error - should have been @SomeoneElse_Revert .

Thanks - just a typo, now fixed.

你好，
你能解釋一下為什麼你在這裡刪除了英文名嗎？ 它在某種程度上是無效的嗎？
此致，
安迪

Hello,
Can you explain why you deleted the English name here? Was it invalid in some way?
Best Regards,
Andy

你好，
您還在這裡更改了名稱-您也可以解釋一下嗎？
此致，
安迪

Hello,
You've also changed the names here - can you explain that as well?
Best Regards,
Andy

您好，
您已從此處的 https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/6169850701 中刪除了該名稱。 這裡的變更集註釋沒有解釋這一點。 你能提供更多細節嗎？
此致。
安迪

Hello HKHikerhang,
You've removed the name from https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/6169850701 here. The changeset comment here does not explain that. Can you provide a bit more detail?
Best Regards.
Andy

For more detail see the discussion on changeset/125817813 - ignore the misconceptions about how rights of way work in England and Wales at the top of the thread but instead read the "things that might have been mistagged" further down.

@DaveF What I was trying to do was to understand _why_ people thought that there was a problem here. What that did was to bring out the fact that some of the mismatched tags weren't because the "access" tags were wrong, but others - the "highway" tag in a couple of cases (some since resolved by other mappers, others not yet).
In examples where it's unclear what caused an "odd combination of tags" each example really does need to be discussed with the original mapper (or if not possible, just resurveyed) to understand what went wrong. That's something that (and I'm trying to be polite here) your people skills don't seem to have equipped you for, so it's probably better if other people do that.

The edit to the Taff Trail was actually based on a survey from 2014!

This isn't a collection; it is an incomplete boundary.