Hello,
I'm guessing that the guideposts still part of relation/9579 should also be moved to whatever relation the ways have now moved to?

Hello and welcome to OSM!
For info, another mapper has deleted the "Hertfordshire" that was added here. However, when I did an overpass search https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1xAC it found both of the remaining ones (the historic county and the current administrative area with that name.
Any questions please don't hesitate to ask....

In addition, we are aware (see https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1086252957 ) that one person has been creating "sock-puppet" accounts to try and add this back as a "path". If they try this again (without producing pictures to back up their change) their edit will be reverted.

Andy from the DWG here again. We've just heard from the National Trust again. Among other things they have said "The path is really just a short cut through steep and loose mountain habitat" and "blocking the path was a matter of disguising the route by rearranging stone and scree) it is not a genuine route". I've therefore removed "highway=path" and left "disused:highway=path". See changeset/138626839 . Strictly speaking, as noted previously, it's in access land and so is "foot=yes". If anyone wants to improve the tagging of these things generally in OSM, please join the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-highway-scramble/2496 . If anyone believes that the NT description as "not really a path" is incorrect please take photographs - the ones that I have seen suggest an iffy scree slope (it's some years since I've been past either end in person).

@Mateusz lots of people have reverted many of these already. A background process (which wrote changeset/138537896 a day ago) is going through this user's changes and reverting them, but it hasn't found much to do recently because people like @NorthCrab have already reverted the changes (for which many thanks).

Actually, according to the website displayed above the serving hatches, it is the same chain.

Should node/252673627/history perhaps be disused:highway=bus_stop if buses no longer stop there?

Hello,
I'm guessing that way/943847721 was a typo for something, but I'm not sure what? Maybe a widish hedge?
Cheers,
Andy

Thanks!

Hello EZRouting,
In changeset/128008408 you said "We will create separate accounts for each of our employees so that we follow OSM policies. "
You haven't done this yet.
Best Regards, Andy Townsend, from OSM's Data Working Group

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/argument-about-an-underground-drain-in-vienna/101082

Hello,
I'm guessing that "St George Parish Boundy Marker" node/8852728927 might actually be "... Boundary ..."?
Best Regards,
Andy

> What else could be the reason why mappers come across a "missing" tunnel tag,
Because people want it mapped "correctly" in OSM, in the sense of "consistently with other examples of similar features"?
> And why do you keep referring to a forum on Austria
https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/tagging/71 is (as the link suggests) a global "tagging" sub-forum below "help-and-support" on the forum.

> As already said, I can bring in people who confirm this is not a tunnel.
There's no need to "bring in people" - just discuss it with people who are familiar with OSM tagging of similar structures at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/at/59 or https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/tagging/71 . By all means ask people with real-world experience of water management (or whatever) to contribute there, but it has to be a discussion with other people who tag things in OSM to achieve anything.

> It seems the only reason why you are so obsessed with the tunnel tag is to make it render it dashed in Carto
I don't see the evidence for that - you are the only person here who has mentioned OSM Carto's rendering.

> It's about the appreciation of ground work and expertise....

If you think that I'm in favour of "armchair" or "non-local" contributions at the expense of survey you clearly haven't read anything I've written since I started contributing to OSM many years ago :)
This isn't about that - it's about how best to capture the physical reality in OSM tags. That's why I'm suggesting you explain "what is there" to a wider audience so that that wider audience can comment on how that physical reality tends to be tagged in OSM.

Oddly that name is also on node/4970523469 - no idea what it is supposed to be!

@fkv Please don't press too hard for the DWG to make an "executive decision" - you might not like the answer!
I don't think that a "vote" would be of much value either - the small numbers involved in OSM wiki votes just make them self-selecting polls; useful to see which way the wind is blowing but very easy to game.
Better would be a community discussion where you can explain why you think you're right and the people who disagree can say why they think you are not.

> As a native English speaker, would you say that a cul de sac is a passageway? Is it a passage if all you can do is return to the starting point?

Yes, "tunnel" can be used for features like that. No one would think that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamson_Tunnels are not tunnels because there is no exit at one end for some of them.

Rather than "writing a clarification proposal" I'd again suggest (as I mentioned before) just discussing it with other users on the forum.

I have to say, if this is a sewer / drain that drains into the stream to the north, surely there's some way for water (or, er, "other fluids") to get into it in the first place? Presumably some sort of pipework?

Re:
> Yes, if they have an entrance on each end. A tunnel=* tag signals the renderer to render an underground passage with an entrance on each side so viewers know they can get out at the other end.
You _really_ do need to discuss your interpretation of "what a tunnel is" NS "what other features it implies" more widely.

(answering some of the questions above)

> Are you sure you got your forum link right?
Yes, I deliberately linked to the Austrian forum. The international tagging forum is https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/tagging/71 ; I suspect you'd receive even more pushback there.

What you seem to be saying is that it is an "underground drain that is somehow not a tunnel". Obviously I've never been to the location in question so can't add my own thoughts as to how to tag this particular example, but tunnel tags are regularly used with the underground portions of drains and ditches.