Sorry, you're going to have to provide me with a link.

Hi
Yes. I've read all that previously, & all I see is duplication & confusion. I understand the point of stop_positions, but please provide an example of stop_areas in use.

I believe any pointless data should be removed.
I see 35 edits in your profile. Are you referring to something else?

Hi Alexey
Could you explain what stop_areas are? What are they for, who uses them?

I've asked, but no one seems to know. Their occurrences are sporadic & many entities tagged that are tagged appear irrelevant to actual rail travel (litter bins, bike racks, shops etc).
There was a post to the Transit forum saying there needs to be a review of the PT schema. Iagree - It's got out of hand.

Sorry - 'V'

Hi Tom
A long time ago but do you remember adding ref's to these tertiary roads? 'Y' is an unusual label was it official & with road signs?
way/22736727/history

Ah, that explains it. Thanks.

Hi
The accurate expression is 'not tagging /incorrectly/ for the renderer'.
All tags are are for the renderer otherwise it would just be a map of black dots & lines.
This extra tag gives an option to render or not but still keep the info in the database.

Apologies (I clicked on the wrong name), but thanks for having a look.

Hi
For footpaths the reference tag should be 'prow_ref'

prow_ref=*

Hi
For the majority of 'C' class roads which are unsigned, it was agreed to tag them in a way so they could avoid being rendered. 'highway_authority_ref' was the chosen tag.
There are a few which are signed. These should have a 'ref' tag
Can you confirm if this road is signed or not?
way/59071372

Hi
For the majority of 'C' class roads which are unsigned, it was agreed to tag them in a way so they could avoid being rendered. 'highway_authority_ref' was the chosen tag.
There are a few which are signed. These should have a 'ref' tag
Can you confirm if this road is signed or not?
way/346028750

Hi
For the majority of unsigned 'C' class roads it was agreed to tag them in a way so they avoid being rendered. 'highway_authority_ref' was the chosen tag.
There are a few which are signed. These should have a 'ref' tag
Can you confirm if this newly referenced road is signed or not?

Your OSM time would be much more beneficially spent if you assessed your criticisms on the actual detrimental quality of the edits rather than just on their size & how you perceive they were performed.

Very disappointing you've reverted without providing justifiable reasons.

Re: "you didn't address my point about your removal of other fhrs:* tags.":-
Please see the changeset comments + "All data relevant to fhrs can be obtained via the fhrs:id link."

Re:fhrs:local_authority_id.
This is a tag is for internal authority use. It is not used by any websites such as 'scores on the doors'. frhs:id is the only tag required.

Please provide evidence removed data was current, beneficial, relevant, in use, being maintained & unavailable from other, better maintained sources & I'll be willing willing to revert. Otherwise I just see these tags as irrelevant gumpf from a database dump which fails to add quality to the OSM database.

I refute your claim it was undiscussed & uncontrolled.

"it was decided that transient data such as this should not be included as tags"

"we agreed to not put transient data from the fhrs dataset into OSM"

Al* data relevant to fhrs can be obtained via the fhrs:id link.

There is no sell by date on decisions taken to improve the database's quality.

The maintenance of these tags in OSM can best be described as 'poor'. By law local authorities have to maintain FHRS data. There is no point in OSM doing it as well.

The majority of tags were at least 6 years old. I suspect that not only are the tags poor data, but many of the establishments are closed.

I believe these edits improve the quality of the OSM database.

Yes. fhrs:rating=*

Done

Your last two edits have erroneously added address tags to *every* node. please learn to use the editing tools wisely before proceeding. I suggest you use iD instead.