It would be really helpful if you could use meaningful changeset comments and smaller bounding boxes.

"Fix with Osmose" doesn't say what you changed or why, or what the source was.

In the case of the change to node/249269728/history you could perhaps have said "changed underscore to space in link to wikipedia". Similar (but different) comments could apply to the other changes, and a smaller bounding box would mean that it did not appear in everyone's "history" list.

Hi,
This is quite a large changeset. It would be really helpful to other mappers if you could localise changes a bit more - that way changes like this won't appear in everyone's "history" list, but only in those mappers local to a change.

Are you sure that the "bar" that you've edited at node/3396907102/history actually exists? It seems implausible to me that a 24/7 bar should be open in a residential area of Buxton. The housename, housenumber, name and operator all suggest to me that it's just added by someone as a joke.

If you're modifying data (even quite a lot of data, as you are here) you really should check all of the data that you are modifying to check that it seems sensible - otherwise you're just doing a blind mechanical edit.

Any reason that you've added addr:country to node/3762723795/history ?

Hi,
way/366639854 , and quite a few to the west of it, are "building=re". Was that supposed to be "building=residential"?

Hi - some buildings here have been added as "building=y#" - I'm guessing that that should be building=yes?

way/311168535 is one example - the two to the south are too.

Hi,
If there's a telephone box with no telephone inside perhaps http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/building=telephone_box would work? I've used that where e.g. the telephone has been replaced with a small library, tourist information or art display.

Hi, would it be possible to describe what was changed here? "#to-fix:highwayhighway" doesn't really explain it.

Ha! I knew I'd have put "30 mpg" somewhere!

It would be much more helpful to everyone if you could use a meaningful changeset comment explaining what you've changed and why instead of just "correction".

Please, before making changes like this do try and understand why they have been made. If you looked at way/22777541/history you would have been seen that that key was not an error, and had been applied deliberately (and I'd already changed it back following a previous armchair change).

The reason is straightforward - both ways concerned have been surveyed by me, and are best considered as unclassified roads due to their role in the local road network (Lyth Hill Road is in addition designated as a "Quiet Lane"). Some armchair mappers have a tendency to change unclassified to roads to tertiary (and vice versa) to make the map "look nice" - entirely unrelated to the role those roads play in the local network. Having a "source:highway=unclassified" tag set to "survey" makes it clear that when surveyed, it was unclassified. Changing that tag to "source:highway" does not make that clear - after the armchair change it looks like the road has been surveyed as tertiary.

If you see tags like this that you don't understand I'd always suggest that you contact the original mapper. In this case I'd have been more than happy to explain exactly why they are there.

Thanks.

Just for info, this change introduced a gap in the A623 (two bits of that previously joined at node/1553007427 ; once that was deleted there was a gap). I've also resolved the "multiple short overlaps" that there were at the junction. I suspect that the introduction of the original problem (that you fixed) might have been in changeset/34546371 or earlier; hopefully what I've done has filled in the gap and fixed that too. Let me know if it hasn't.

That's a tricky one, because that old copy of the Ramblers' site does say "© Ramblers 2012. " at the bottom. I can't believe that there information isn't freely available (with a compatible licence) somewhere, though.

Is node/3842571865 really called "Bootswerkstatt / Werft"? That sounds more like a (German) description of what it is. If something really doesn't have a name, there's no need to make one up for OSM. See osm.wiki/DE:Names#name_ist_nur_der_Name .

Is the name of "node/3842602281" really correct? I'd expect that "Brench" is supposed to be "Branch" - but is that really the name? It sounds more like a description of what it is. If the sign just says "Belturbet Boat Company" I'd just set the name to that.

Thanks for fixing (and sorry it took so long to reply!).

Hi - something seems to have gone wrong here - way/377958610 seems to be an exact duplicate of way/377958965 ?

Hi - just spotted "Orage EE" at node/3809342910 - I'm guessing that that should be "Everything Everywhere" or "EE" now? I doubt there's any "Orange" branding left and if there is it'd be "Orange" not "Orage" :)

I notice you've added a bit of the Gritstone Trail relation/4077771 to "European walking route E2" relation/1976230 here. Is that actually signposted anywhere? I've never noticed it.