You've added tracks=2 to way/184234588/history (and others). Looking at the way that this one's mapped, I can't believe that it is correct?

If you mean "Google Street View" I'm afraid Google's terms and conditions don't allow it to be used for OSM. See osm.wiki/Faq#What_images_and_maps_may_I_use_to_make_maps_from.3F for details.

Where is the height restriction? I don't see one on way/372827392 at all.

If way/30474767/history has changed its name from Telegraph Row to Teelgraph Road, what about way/32650736 ?

In changeset/34039817 I asked why you were splitting roads but leaving identically tagged parts behind that aren't part of any relations? That's still happening here.

Can you explain why I shouldn't immediately just merge these three ways back together again?

Previously I asked in changeset/34040216 why you were splitting identically-tagged ways in two. You're still doing it here - way/28776301 and way/372827392 are both identically tagged and neither is part of a relation.

Can you explain why I shouldn't just immediately merge these together again?

Please don't use the main OSM server for test edits. If you want to test things in the editor, there's a test server available at http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org (it needs a separate login from the main OSM site but is otherwise similar)

You can add any amount of test data you like there without it causing any problems on the live map.

I've reverted this changeset at null island and other self-described "test data" changesets.

Cheers, Andy

I think that something went spectactularly wrong with an upload here - Durham Cathedral now has a huge number of duplicated nodes. I'm guessing that this changeset is the problem (61 pages of nodes, 1 way). Is there any chance you could tidy it up?

@robgeb now reverted - does everything look OK now?

According to the comments on note/429142 , there's nothing remaining of this at all (railway=abandoned is usually used for where a former railway has left a big scar in the landscape, something that you can navigate by). If that's the case, perhaps this feature might have a more natural home somewhere like Open Historical Map?

I think that something's gone a bit wrong with the tagging of way/120317629/history . Currently it has "yes=no". I'm guessing that perhaps that should be "oneway=no" or some other access mode = "no"?

way/332527313/history currently has a tag "yes=no". I'm guessing that perhaps it's some other sort of access (bicycle? horse?) that should be set to "no" here?

I think that something has gone a bit wrong with way/29300745/history . Previously it was "oneway=no", and now it's "yes=no", whereas many streets nearby are "oneway=yes". Perhaps that's what was meant here too?

Hello,
Does way/371534564 actually exist? The changeset comment "Planning submitted to Fylde Borough Council Aug 2015" suggests not. If something is merely a proposal it shouldn't yet be added as a road.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend

Hi - just for info, this changeset included a node at latitude 0, longitude 0. I've deleted it.

Just checking - did you delete the highway tag from way/49164552 deliberately? This was a track when I was last there (but it was a while ago)

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Just checking - does the A601M extension really exist now all the way south to the north of Lancaster? My recollection of it is just the spur around Carnforth. OpenStreetMap is a place where what exists now is mapped, not things as they might be (or are perhaps proposed to happen in the future). If you want to overlay "things as they might look" over OSM perhaps have a look at http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ and similar sites?

Best Regards, Andy

PS - any questions please don't hesitate to ask.

Thanks. What restriction was it that you tagged?

Hi - just noticed a few forest tracks named "Forest Track" here such as way/316666926 . Just for info - if there isn't a name signed for something you don't need to make one up; it's perfectly OK to leave things without names if they don't have one.
Anyway - hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to help. Any questions please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Just checking - are you sure that way/33777910 joins way/266631527 here (in addition to the bollard at the east)? It's not really clear from the imagery.