Thanks!

Actually, that one was interpolation, not survey

Re relation/10633693 - how are you supposed to get from one side of the bridge to the other?

I'm guessing that "departures_board=no_left_turn" on node/430402116 should probably be "no"?

I blame iD's presets :)

Has the Magnet really reopened? It was aboutto be demolished when I last saw it....

Are you sure that way/926868429#map=19/53.51427/-1.59670 is really on a different geometry to way/4450664#map=16/53.5142/-1.5967 ? It looks to me like they are exactly the same feature.

Also 66 and WoR cycle routes between Dunnington and York

Just wondered - should way/1102802561 be part of the Greensand Way route? It seems to be not connected to anything (found via http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=57416 ).

With regards to how to tag things like way/932001604/history , there's a fair bit of usage of man_made=ventilation_shaft and railway=ventilation_shaft - see http://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe:britain-and-ireland/search?q=ventilation_shaft#values .

Thanks. Suppose a "new user" appears (who is in reality the same "spam" user, but with a different email address). What will you do to verify that the things that they suggest actually exist, as opposed to being made-up names?

Thanks - what evidence was provided in this vase?

Thanks - I've found a dozen or so so far (most of https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1H3d ). I'll try and scan the QR codes on the bus stops to see if I can find any way to "translate" the incorrect ones. Some are, I'm sure, just old data.

I'm not sure how it happened, but quite a few of the ones added for York here were wrong. An example was node/2466092653/history , where that naptan code is actually for node/2527494752 , which you can verify via http://deps.at/?32900260 .

Alas - tracking of feedback from this user did not prevent further fiction being added in changeset/146852127 .
What sources do you use to verify requests to change names such as here?
Clearly we want to avoid a situation where the easy way to get vandalism into OSM is to "ask Mapbox to add it".

Thanks for fixing this item of data. More generally, could you answer the rest of the question - what sources do you use to verify requests to change names such as here?
This has happened before in changeset/131420795 . Clearly we want to avoid a situation where the easy way to get vandalism into OSM is to "ask Mapbox to add it".

Hello,
Andy from the DWG here. We've had a report of fake names getting added here.
What sources did you verify the user's request to change names here?
This ian't the first time that users have tried to add fake names to OSM via this mechanism.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Why did you remove railway=abandoned from way/32558406/history ? It's adding valuable data to the cycleway here.
I've also removed the fantasy duplicates such as your extension of way/754132188 . I actually added all this from on the ground survey 4 years ago and you've made a complete mess of it.
Hopefully I still have my original survey data and will be able to recreate what you have destroyed.

Thanks again!

Thanks!