Hello,
(apologies for asking about something from 13 years ago)
I don't know if you can remember, but is the tagging on node/588828362 OK? It's both "amenity=pub" and "tourism=picnic_site". Is it perhaps "a pub with a picnic site nearby", or something else?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I was looking through some outlier "trail_visibility" values in UK/IE and found "4" on way/840443950 . I first thought maybe it was supposed to be a "tracktype", but the comment on the changeset is "changed footpath visibility" so I'm not sure?
Best Regards,
Andy

Odd thought it sounds, "Standingstone Farm" probably IS the name of the archaeological site (if not actually the stone itself), per the linked https://canmore.org.uk/site/56405/standingstone-farm .

Also, using any of the available imagery in iD, I think that you have the northern part of way/1131826557 join the road in the wrong place.

Can you please use more descriptive changeset comments than just "mapping with Strava and Sentinel 2022"?
Say what sort of things you are adding and what sort of information from Strava and what other imagery you're using before adding anything.

... because the problems that I happen to have spotted locally to me are likely not the totality of the problems in these changes.
Another one was way/121715813/history (I see you've changed that now to recreation_ground - that makes more sense, although most of that shape really is pitch, regardless of the shape (just look at the way that it's mown).
There will surely be others though...

The OEG has an "Informing the community" section - where did the post about the "Profanity cleaning" activity go?

One more thing VLD271,
Can you explain where this series of edits (and the methodology behind it) was discussed with the local community as required by the OEG?
Best Regards,
Andy

You've added "name:tok=ma Juke" here for https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/838090640 . Where can I go and verify that?

Some of the changes here look dubious. See osm.org/user_blocks/6746 .

Also, would it be possible to sed a bit more light on the project behind "Checking data and relations for towns in Lincolnshire. This changeset forms part of paid work to improve OpenStreetMap data. #UKTownCheck #OrganisedEditing "? Is there anything on the wiki that explains it?

Hello LivingWithDragons,
I'd suggest joining the thread at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-January/029808.html to explain a bit more about these. A relevant overpass query from the first post in that thread for the admin level 11 stuff is https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1pXk . Personally, I don't think that it makes any sense for something that is not an administrative area to have an admin level, but maybe there's a reason I'm not aware of?
Best Regards,
Andy

I'm pretty sure that way/1103551293/history does not exist either.

Grrr - iD just trims comments rather than warning like proper edits do. That note should be:

Clearly not a peak. As a local, I have never heard the name. It has gone from OS OpemMaps Local. historical evidence can possibly be found at one of the sources for https://epns.nottingham.ac.uk/browse/id/532881d8b47fc40c8100007f-Great+Knoll (that secondary source isn't compatible with OSM, but OS OpenMap StreetView obviously was, and the primary sources used by EPNS will surely be out of copyright)

Excellent - thanks!

Whilst a road width of 1.6m on a residential road way/34128448/history is pretty unlikely, I'd suggest that the person who added that measurement would probably benefit from a bit of feedback as to why that is unlikely to be a valid value - just changing it in a changeset with the comment "Fixup broken widths" does not really resolve the issue - it does nothing to stop the original width adder adding the same width again. Maybe you've PMed them, in which case thanks - but if not I suggest that a bit more information might be needed.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
As you can see from https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=130866525 you have removed the tags from and added instead "tree_row".
Your change comment here is just "improvement".
Can you please explain what you are trying to do?
Best Regards,
Andy

@Xvtn One of the benefits of going through the import process is to discuss whether or not the data is of "questionable utility", as you put it, as well as discussing the licence. Clearly in this case the person adding the data isn't physically visiting each country in turn, finding a "Toki Pona" speaker and asking them what the name of the country is - they're copying (in a fairly mechanical manner) from another source. Supposing the other source had one of the names misprinted - how would anyone know?

@OpenStreetMapMapper - for the avoidance of doubt, I haven't explicitly removed any Esperanto names; I just reverted a change that wasn't compatible with OSM's license that added some names in a different made-up language. See changeset/130767955 for the rest of the discussion, including about the verifiability of these names.

> If the book isn't compatible either, that's okay

A book published in the last few years is extremely unlikely to be licence-compatible. However, if you know under which it was made available under you can read https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility and see if it does actually fit.

Even if it is, you'll still need to follow osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines before importing the data.