@Aleks-Berlin You've been asked before to stop making mechanical edits. If this had truly been a non-mechanical edit you'd have spotted that way/44108573 already existed and tried to merge the tags sensibly, or asked the local community for the best way forward. It's a similar issue to the one that I tidied up after you yesterday - changeset/37577173 ("removing obvious duplicate and merging tags").

@meadowgreen, on changeset/37157905 I suggested that you discuss changes like this on the talk-gb mailing list before making them, and I'll suggest that again now - that way other people can catch things such as this.
OpenStreetMap is a collaborative community, and we have to work together to create the best map. Sometimes there's no problem - we can just add unmapped stuff. However, when changing the status of something existing it can be tricky - different points of view may need to be discussed. See also changeset/36788665 where much the same happened.
And yes, in this case I'm aware of the "unusual" history of Leith, and how it was "merged into Edinburgh against its will" (I believe I heard it as told by son of Leith Mr Dick Gaughan).
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse), on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.

Just because you don't understand what the original mapper meant by "accomodation", please don't change it to something that you do understand (but which you do not know is correct).
Something that is mapped using an "unusual" tag will be visible to people as being an unusual tag; they may well go and investigate what it really is. Maybe "tourism=accommodation" really is the best tag or maybe something else is; either way we'll know the correct answer after they've surveyed it.
If you guess at a random tag from a couple of thousand miles away we won't know what the correct tag is and we won't even know that there is something that needs investigating.
You have been blocked in the past for performing these sorts of mechanical edits ( osm.org/user_blocks/869 ) - please don't do it. They devalue the work of all of the people in OpenStreetMap who actually go out and survey things.
I'll revert these changes (and any other questionable changes of yours that I see).
If you wish to perform mechanical edits, please follow the policy that is currently documented at osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct .
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

I'd be careful with any sort of "tidying" like this. Not all ways of conveying "former" have the same connotation. For example, in the UK roughly a dozen different tag/value combinations are used for "former pubs" - see https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L401 (based on an analysis of tag usage in that area a couple of months ago).

Something that is a "disused:amenity=pub" is generally something that was a pub, is now no longer a pub (in the sense of not serving beer) but may reopen and start serving beer again in the future. A "former_amenity=former_pub" doesn't have any sense that it might reopen as a pub; it might be something else altogether now.

Here you've changed node/1494331914/history to "amenity=disused:restaurant", but the normal way to indicate a disused amenity would be "disused:amenity=restaurant".

You've changed node/1448453650/history from "accommodation" to "guest_house", but are you sure that it really is a guest_house and not some other kind of accommodation (self_catering, bed_and_breakfast, something else)?

Hi, from looking at the imagery, I'm not convinced that way/401037393 is a separate building to way/274815891 , way/401037327 and way/401037323 . It look like they're all one building with at most 3 parts way/274815891 , which the imagery suggests is actually a different shape, and an extension, part of which ( way/401037393 ) has a higher roof than the rest of it.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I think that something went a bit wrong here. The connection between The Green and the cycleway leading from it got dragged accidentally so that it was the other side of some houses. I've moved it back - hope that is OK.
If you've got any questions please don't hesitate to ask!
Cheers,
Andy

Sure - but how will consumers of the data know to monitor a change to a wiki page that they probably don't even know exists without a public announcement?

Can you explain the logic behind your adding of way/399551067/history ? Surely it is just meta-data about the planet and doesn't belong in OSM at all?

Did you actually tell anyone anywhere that you were going to make this change? If not, how will people using the keys that you removed know that they are no longer present?

Something went a bit wrong with way/3283180/history here - "lanes=2" got set to "lanes=2; 3". Something happened the other side too I suspect - way/237463679/history and way/237463681/history got deleted.

Is the name of the building _really_ "Global-ID 9t96-xf6g"? I guess it's possible, but it seems pretty unlikely...

Hi,
In this changeset it looks like you removed a number of tags (including the wikipedia tag). Was there any reason for this? See http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=448739405 for details.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.

For places that have names in both Serbian and Albania, I'd suggest adding "name:sr" and "name:sq" tags as well as the "name" tag. That way it's easy for people who want to create a map with all-Albanian names or all-Serbian ones. Here it does make sense for the "name" tag to be in Serbian as that's the majority language spoken here this side of the river.
(same comment also added to changeset/37472800 )
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.

For places that have names in both Serbian and Albania, I'd suggest adding "name:sr" and "name:sq" tags as well as the "name" tag. That way it's easy for people who want to create a map with all-Albanian names or all-Serbian ones. Here it does make sense for the "name" tag to be in Serbian as that's the majority language spoken here this side of the river.
(same comment also added to changeset/37483870 ).
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.

Hi,
The "background discussion" started off on changeset/37476283 . What happened was that while merging some nodes, some detail was lost. The author of that changeset contacted the DWG asking for it and a number of other similar changesets to be reverted so that they could check the data. I suspect that they didn't want to do it themselves at this time with JOSM+reverter plugin because there have been a couple of issues with that recently (the last time I updated JOSM plugins the reverter stopped working with the latest tested JOSM, and previously there were other issues with reverts not happening). I knew that I did have working matching versions of JOSM+reverter plugin so did actually use that to do the reverts.
I didn't mention that the mail had come via the DWG in the message above because it wasn't really relevant to the requested changes - I didn't want it to appear as some sort of DWG "punishment" (which it wasn't - we all make mistakes sometimes and it's great that when a problem has been spotted in OSM everyone wants to fix it).
Cheers,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse)

Hi,
I've re-added the "name" tag for the country of Kosovo which you removed in this changeset. OpenStreetMap follows the "on the ground" rule for names - see "names" in http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf for more details. There may be names in different languages (for example I'd expect there to be a name:sr, which is currently missing) but where there is a well-accepted local name I'd expect it to be in the name tag.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.

Reverted following a request from the changeset author in changeset/37478490 .

Any chance of translating those hashtags into a human-readable language? :)