Hi - just checking that way/28986565 and way/28944497 really do join here. The Bing imagery suggests that there is a wall in the way, but maybe you got a note from someone saying that they do join?

Well, changeset/32751596 is of a similar size. I only spotted the ones that appeared in the history list where I am (East Midlands of England) - there may be others; I haven't looked.

A more descriptive changeset comment here might have been 'changed place=Farm to place=farm (the value for "place" tags conventionally is all lowercase)'. With "fix place typos" it's not clear that "place" is actually a tag here; someone might have spelt a recurring name of a place wrong.

The problem with very wide changesets is that they occur on everyone's history tab, and make it less useful as a tool to find local edits for everybody as a result. With only four items, it really wouldn't have been that much extra work to do it in four changesets.

You did delete rather than change the tag, but the relation itself is a left-over duplicate with no members. Using relation/285872/history you can see that it has no members now and that former members are now part of relation/338852 .

Thanks for that (and FWIW I believe that other people have had "unhelpful" responses from that mapper too).

It's not a systematic check BTW - just spotted one in York (where I spend part of the week) and also looking at some large-area ones.

Hi,
On e.g. way/24854072/history you've removed the bicycle tag because you didn't understand it. While it's possible it was added in error, it's also possible that the original mapper was trying to add a meaningful bicycle tag and just spelt it wrong. Did you try and contact the original mappers to try and find out what they meant?

Any reason why you changed the tags in relation/285872/history rather than just deleting it? It makes what you did look very much like an undiscussed mechanical edit :)
Of course I do think that it's fair to assume that "bicycle=lcn" means the same as "network=rcn", so it does make the sense to make the change, but it also helps to look for other problems that might be in the data at the same time. If in doubt, contact the original mappers.

Just checking - did you mention the change to the tagging here to the person who previously mapped it? That way they're less likely to use the same misnamed tag in the future.

Hi, it'd be really helpful if your changesets didn't cover most of the planet and described what had actually been changed. It's also useful to explain to relatively experienced mappers what the problem was and why you fixed it, so that they don't make the same mistake again.

Is Newark crossing really mapped the best way that it can be? Currently node/3103772965/history and node/3355749966 are separate nodes, even though in reality there exactly the same node.

I've fixed the "doubling back" issue in changeset/34136902 (based on the underlying GPS traces). Does that look OK now?

The NLS 1:25k has "Twyn Llech" (which I'm guessing is best translated as "slate hillock" here) over to the west at the top of the valley, which seems a bit odd. I guess it needs checking from the signage on the ridge. I'll be in the Beacons in a couple of weeks time; if I get chance to do this bit I'll check (but no routes planned as yet).

Which OS OOC map was it? I've had a look at the NLS OS 7th series and 1:25k and can't see either name on either of those. Bart's has "Black Mountain" along the whole ridge (but the whole area, rather than just this peak, is referred to now as "The Black Mountains", to distinguish it from "The Black Mountain" to the west). It does have a wikipedia page though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mountain_(hill) ). I've not walked this section of the Offa's Dyke path recently (from the south the lure of the pubs in Llanthony has always been too strong), but what'd really be useful to know would be what the signs on the ground say. Certainly the Offa's Dyke path to the south is signed with the name of the next summit each way.

@lcmortensen To be fair, if you'd discussed the mechanical edit beforehand and separated it from other work, that wouldn't have happened.

Would it be possible to check (i.e. go there and have a look) to see how much is left of it? Copying a name from some external list doesn't really help with the quality of data in OSM itself. The name "Cefn Mawr" means "great rock" I believe - if it's that "great" presumably it'd be visible even from afar on the main road?

Are you sure about this one? The current OSM mapping (and imagery) suggests that it is inside a quarry. If that is the case, it seems unlikely that it is a natural=peak?

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I'm not sure I quite understand the "Splitting into 2 way to tag restriction" here - both ends of the Northampton Road have the same tags on them, and they're not part of any relations - what's the difference between the two?
Cheers,
Andy

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I'm not sure I quite understand the "Splitting into 2 way to tag restriction" here - both the Claydon end and the Mollington end of the Mollington Road have the same tags on them, and they're not part of any relations - what's the difference between the two?
Cheers,
Andy

Hello, are you sure that way/140772530/history is really a recreation ground? It looks more like the grounds for the school node/356415387 to me. I don't believe that I've ever walked along the footpath through it, so can't offer direct evidence of what it is.

Thanks for adding a bit of Centenary Way! I've added it to the relation; you can see the new bit at relation/1069677#map=12/52.9657/-1.3810 .

As with changeset/34094400 , it doesn't make a lot of sense to make up a name using both the Welsh and English versions. What would be correct would be "name:cy=Twmpa; name:en=Lord Herefords Knob" and then either "name=Twmpa" or "name=Lord Herefords Knob" (although OS Opendata has only the latter both names are used pretty much interchangeably here)