If it's been shut for 2 years and counting perhaps "disused:amenity=pub" might be better than "amenity=pub" for way/224272727/history ?

Oops, inadvertent changeset comment. Should actually have been "Ditches near Spalford from OSSV".

... did something similar myself only yesterday.

Thinking back, I suspect it probably is complete (I'd have marked it as construction when I added the medical centre 18 months ago I suspect). Would need someone walking past to check though.

Hehe - I've no idea what "adg" means. Secret Wurzels fan perhaps? :)

Is way/386672698 really still not complete yet? It's been on the go for a couple of years - I'd have thought it'd be finished by now.

Hi, just spotted the width tag on way/362266045 . Is that an accident or is it really < 50cm wide? way/362263089 nearby is similar.

Hi, bits of Castle Street and Castle Wynd here have an implausible width tag 5.5;3.3 (way/312143855/history and way/125921843). I'm guessing that they were merged at some point in the past. Do you know where the width changes?

Hello, something seems to have gone bit wrong with way/366034776 . It seems to duplicate an existing footpath (presumably what needs to happen is for the existing footpath to be changed to cycleway and the duplicate removed). Also, it's got a width of "-2" which I'm guessing should be "2"?
Anyway, hope you don't mind me mentioning this; just trying to help. Any questions please don't hesitate to ask.
Cheers,
Andy

Actually, a web search finds a similarly-named company on the same street name on an industrial estate in Gateshead . It might actually just be a cockup rather than a conspiracy :)

Great - thanks.

Hi way/118603744 among others have layer=10 on them. That's not technically invalid, but seems unlikely that that was what was intended. Just mentioning in case you want to change them - see http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/dlh for the list.

Hi - while importing stuff into a rendering database, I noticed that way/351677973 has layer=17 on it. That's obviously not invalid, but may not have been what was intended :)

Hi, it appears that something went wrong with the change to way/121250285/history here. It looks like you applied a name:pl based on a wikipedia link but did not check that the object actually had a name. The wikipedia article mentions the OSM object (the solar array) but is actually the page for the underlying building, not the solar array itself.

Obviously mistakes happen, but you'll want to check the other changes in here too I expect.
Cheers,
Andy

Hi, while importing GB data into a rendering database I noticed that way/207887907 had an odd layer tag. It might be deliberate, but just letting you know in case it wasn't.

Hi, you've added "layer=+1" to way/354952697/history - just wondering if that was deliberate?

I spotted it while importing OSM data into a rendering database. I don't think it's a problem as such; just checking in case you wanted to tag it as something else.

Hi - just wondered what "layer=1.6" on way/375684838 means (I spotted it when investigating why an import of OSM data into a rendering database gave a warning)?

It's not a problem - just letting you know in case you tagged it this way by mistake.

Ah, OK - thanks. It'd be interesting to try and get the separate sidewalks around the side of the roundabout mapped, though. That area's a bit of a public/private mix and it probably would need a survey to figure out what is actually joined to what.

You've just removed "sidewalk=separate" here (and although I can guess what the original mapper meant, it's not completely clear). There are enough mappers local to Canary Wharf that I think that a note would get actioned - I've certainly added notes about things near Marsh Wall and Heron Quays that have got picked up almost immediately.

Hi, you've added way/380267291/history with a name of "Greenhouse". Unless it's actually called "Greenhouse" there's no need to give it that name. If it is just "a greenhouse" than you can tag the greenhouse building itself as such:

building=greenhouse

Cheers,
Andy