Due for conversion into residential (likely apartments).

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

▪︎http://www.gov.je/News/2018/Pages/ChasseBrunetClosure.aspx
▪︎http://www.gov.je/News/2019/Pages/LaChasseBrunet.aspx

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Ah, then does it also need a landuse=* since the building should be a separate outline?

What defines the geometry of the town centre?

Apparently this was actually in St. Ouën. I didn't know the border was so close.

For the tunnel, from where did the dimensions (height, width, etc.) come?

“updating map of Jersey”

How?
What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

This comment is meaningless to local mappers.

Because?

What corrections, exactly?

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

What jeslop said. Plus: which tags & why? What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments .

For e.g. McDrive, how about a relation to associate the drive-through with the amenity=fast_food ?

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

You either didn't understand my comment, or are choosing to ignore it.

Since I live nearby, I'd simply survey it myself as indicated.

My point was that Mapbox should be sharing with OSM, else not citing as a source info that it is unwilling to share with OSM.

To then ask for yet more info(!) Sorry, but no, on principal; sharing works both ways, not simply one-way. Either Mapbox wants to comply with the spirit of OSM, or it's no better than Google. I, for one, am not going to enable exploitative misbehaviour.

I'll just make my own edits, thanks.

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Besides, since I prefer surveying, the weather isn't all that inviting lately for doing such (without unreasonable hindrance).

It's not like I'm trawling through all historic changesets; just happening upon ones which are relevant to what I was checking at the time. I think I discovered this set during my efforts re note/2657861

“why are you wasting our time worrying about it?”

Not worrying, or wasting time (attempting to understand why, rather than assuming). However:
▪︎osm.wiki/Keep_the_history
▪︎“having problems editing this one” sounds like you found a bug in Potlatch which would've been better reported & fixed rather than worked-around with data-mangling.

Interesting. I presume because of the “+” character.

Note, though, that at the URL you cite are the following phrases:
▪︎“possibly problematic”
▪︎“can be problematic, because they […] have special meanings in […] URLs” (yet, this is what &…; escaping is for)
▪︎“Keys that appear in this list are not necessarily wrong though.”

I took inspiration for the syntax from
▪︎osm.wiki/Date_namespace
▪︎osm.wiki/Date_specification

As per the value of the key, it's time-sensitive (and given the limited contributions which Jersey receives, it may be a long time until the element is next edited), so the suffix seemed wise (if only to avoid future confusion / ambiguity, especially once construction is long finished). The + was because it applied beyond the month specified, but with an unknown end-date (thus a strict range wasn't possible), so took inspiration from the opening_hours syntax for open-ended dates.

I gather that the whole idea of a date-suffix namespace is in order to have multiple keys of the otherwise same name, but for which there are temporal differences (think of name:[date] especially).

How would you propose the date constraints be specified, instead?

As an intermediate name for the key, to avoid a root-level note=* , might I suggest note:construction=* instead.

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

note/2663972