Did you actually visit and survey this? Originally this way had 3 different footway values; they got merged into one in changeset/18312123 . Either the original survey was wrong, the road has been changed since the original survey, or your attempt to "fix" the data here has made it more wrong than it was before. I suspect the latter. It's clear from the imagery why the original mapper went with "right" and "none"; you could perhaps say that the "none" part was unnecessary but the "right" part looks useful to me as a pedestrian.

One of the articles you quote says "Aruba is one of the four constituent countries that form the Kingdom of the Netherlands". relation/2323309 is the admin level 2 relation; Curaçao relation/1216719 is a subarea of that.
As I've said above, if you think something is wrong you need to discuss it - please don't just dive in and change something that you don't understand. Many (most?) of your edits so far have had to be reverted. I'd suggest that instead of changing international admin levels you instead go out and map the shops in your local high street, or the things in your local park.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Edits that you make update the one shared map that everyone sees. That's why it's important that only valid edits are made to the map. If you want to experiment with the editors, you can do so over at http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org (an exact copy of the main site apart from the map display).
Best Regards,
Andy

Again, as previously noted on changeset/37716429 , we cannot use Google Streetview as a source.

See comment on changeset/37716055 - the same applies here.

What the place describes itself as is essentially irrelevant in OSM terms. If local OSM mappers think that it deserves to be a city, then it does. Previous to your edit, it's actually spent time in OSM as both town and city. It's original "city" status seems to have come directly from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_of_Australia , and there are a bunch of places on there that I've been to that I don't think should qualify as "cities" in OSM terms - Rockingham and Fremantle are obvious examples (both currently "towns" in OSM).
I'd suggest discussing it on the talk-au list.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, we can't use wikipedia as a source because its licence (cc-by-sa) is incompatible with OSM.

However what that article actually says is "... is known for its rock art." and "It consists of a group of rock outcrops" - i.e. it's a place where there is art, not the name of a particular artwork itself.

If you think this tagging is incorrect I'd suggest asking the wider Australian community on the talk-au list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au .

As described in changeset/37716429 we can't use Google as a source.

However, if someone really had built a motorway within Antarctica I think we might have heard about it on the news - it was therefore safe to assume that this changeset suggesting there was a motorway there was simply garbage (or worse, vandalism).

See comment on changeset/37716624

There are a couple of reasons why we can't use wikipedia as a source. One is that wikipedia is cc-by-sa licensed, and that licence is incompatible with OSM.

The other is that what OSM calls a "city" is described on place=city . Wikipedia essentially just records what the city calls itself (or strictly speaking what someone has reported the city as calling itself).

place=city even says "Smaller charter cities should normally be tagged using place=town to avoid these places being promoted too highly in gazetteer search results. According to OSM the population here is 4167, which even for Alaska counts as "smaller".
It should also be noted that admin levels and "place" levels are something that should be discussed within an OSM community - having someone coming in from outside and applying what are essentially random values without discussion just makes OSM data harder to use and OSM harder to edit for the people who _are_ trying to work together.

You can't take what someone has written in a note as something that you can add straight to OpenStreetMap - you have to ask yourself what is the likelihood that what is written is correct.

In the case of Bir Tawil, it's been widely discussed inside OSM and outside for a very long time. Only last week there was a Guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/03/welcome-to-the-land-that-no-country-wants-bir-tawil talking about the "Kingdom of the State of Bir Tawil", the "Emirate of Bir Tawil", the "Grand Dukedom of Bir Tawil", the "Empire of Bir Tawil", the "United Arab Republic of Bir Tawil" and even a "United Lunar Emirate of Bir Tawil"(!). It seems that everyone and their dog has claimed this particular bit of land, but no-one actually controls it.
OSM doesn't have many policies, but one of the ones that it has is http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That describes how we map when there are different claims - the "on the ground rule".
If you go to Bir Tawil and come back with photographic evidence of a functioning state the "Kingdom of North Sudan", we'll believe you. Until then, it's just another claim amongst many, and the only notable thing is that the two major powers in the area don't actually claim this particular piece of land.

To clarify, we can't use Google as a source. It is against their terms and conditions and against OSM's terms.

Re https://github.com/openstreetmap/osm2pgsql/issues/554 , is there any reason why relation/6026949 and relation/6026950 are relations rather than just ways which happen to share nodes along the border?
Alternatively, if they're really the same building shouldn't there be just one building way (the outer way for the building) with two ways inside it, one for each school?
As currently mapped, it's not "wrong" - just confusing for future mappers to edit, and for data processors (such as renderers) to process.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Edits that you make update the one shared map that everyone sees. That's why it's important that only valid edits are made to the map. If you want to experiment with the editors, you can do so over at http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org (an exact copy of the main site apart from the map display).
Best Regards,
Andy

Oops - something went a bit wrong here. node/4056871191/history was in the middle of the Atlantic; I've deleted it.

Oops - something went a bit wrong here. way/403042119/history was in the middle of the Atlantic; I've deleted it.

Oops - something went a bit wrong here. way/403178513/history was in the middle of the Atlantic; I've deleted it.

Hi - I think something went a bit wrong here - node/3589607769/history was in the middle of the Atlantic. I've deleted it; you might want to add it back at the correct location.

Somehow this "Hand Edit" didn't notice that node/3589607769/history was in the middle of the Atlantic :)
I've deleted it.

I deleted a bunch of the "undersea lairs" a while back; I've deleted node/3737006319/history just now.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Edits that you make update the one shared map that everyone sees. That's why it's important that only valid edits are made to the map. If you want to experiment with the editors, you can do so over at http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org (an exact copy of the main site apart from the map display).
Best Regards,
Andy