Just a thought - if you're trying to show something that (thankfully) isn't there any more then maybe you could use something like http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ ? With that you should be able to draw something on the top of an OpenStreetMap map. See also osm.wiki/UMap .

Re Westminster, I've added note/529765 to try and get some comment from the locals.

In what sense is "natural=water, water=river" more "legitimate" than "waterway=riverbank"?
They're both on common use, so renderers and data consumers need to deal with both if they're going to process all features.
Having features flip-flop between one form of tagging and another just confuses everyone :)
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=363217019

I've reverted this. A passing place is the exact opposite of a rest area.

@Traildino - Thanks!

Please don't upload test data to OpenStreetMap.
way/402418980 has lots of meaningless tags on it, and there are 29 pages of ways in this changeset called "245". If you are looking for a test server to upload your data to, I suggest using http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ .
Can you delete this changeset or do you need help doing that?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.

Hi JonisonFR,
I've removed the "waterway=dock" that's been drawn around Mousehole harbour. As Richard has said, it's tidal and not a "dock" in any sense at all.
Best Regards,
Andy
(Automatische Übersetzung)
Hi JonisonFR,
Ich habe den "waterway=dock" entfernt, dass rund Mousehole Hafen gezogen worden ist. Wie Richard gesagt hat, dann ist es Gezeiten und nicht ein "Dock" in jedem überhaupt Sinn.
Freundliche Grüße,
Andy

Thanks - and thanks for doing all the schools hereabouts, too.

This looks very much like a mechanical edit. At least one object way/402973092/history has had to be changed after your edit.
Please see osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct for more details.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group

Would it be possible to explain what the change here actually was? "Solve coastline error lines" doesn't really describe it. the last two changesets affecting way/404032475/history are "Fixing boundary..." and "Solve coastline...", so I suspect there's some communication between mappers that ought to be taking place. If there was a problem with changeset/37884142 , I'd suggest explaining it in a discussion comment on that changeset (and the same goes for any other change that you've "fixed"). People won't know that they've caused a problem unless you tell them (politely) what it is, and if they don't know about it they may do the same thing again.
Best Regards,
Andy

If you're "looking at OSM data that has wikipedia tags that point to an invalid wikipedia article, and correcting it to point to the correct wikipedia article" then I'd say that, not "WIWOSM fixes".

Thanks for deleting - for more info see osm.org/user_blocks/907 .

This is a huge changeset by area, which means that it appears in everyone's "history" list, even if there are no changes in their area. It'd be much nicer if you could group the changes by area :)
Also, what is "WIWOSM"? Don't forget that wikipedia isn't actually a valid source for OSM (its licence isn't compatible), although adding a wikidata link (like way/275433586/history ) is of course OK, provided that you're not using co-ordinates in wikipedia for the matching, but instead using local knowledge.

Just checking - are you sure that way/403656398 is a public footpath? It seems just to go to the church.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I'm guessing that this "Immaginary Cafe" might perhaps be imaginary (or rather a test for the new update features in gnome maps)? If so it worked - but please don't add things that don't exist to OpenStreetMap. There are lots of real world things not yet in OpenStreetMap to add, though...
Best Regards,
Andy

@tcdiosm The point that I was trying to make was that for example "highway=footway" does not indicate the legal status of access. It just means "used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians". There are permissive footways, and private ones.
In order to indicate that something is designated as a public footpath in England and Wales the convention is to use "designation=public_footpath", and it helps to add explicit access tags too. That way it's possible to differentiate between things that are definitely designated as public footpaths, and those places where people are allowed to go that aren't actually public footpaths (for example across CROW act access land).
For byways, the tags that get used are "designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic" for byways that aren't restricted and "designation=restricted_byway" to those that are (restricted byways allow non-motorised traffic - so yes to a horse and cart, but no to a motorcycle).
This tends to get discussed every know and again on the talk-gb mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb and also there are questions and answers on the help site https://help.openstreetmap.org/ . Either of those places might lead to a slightly more legible conversation than a series of comments on one changeset :)
Cheers,
Andy

@tcdiosm if you're replying to me, I'm confused :)

(as a brief aside on "footpath" and "bridleway" tagging):
I'd use "highway=footway" for something that looks like a footpath; "highway=bridleway" for something that looks like a bridleway (typically "has gates instead of stiles and horse poo on the ground") and "highway=track" for something that's wide enough and occasionally used for farm traffic.
In addition I'd add "designation=public_footpath" where a path is signed as a public footpath, "designation=public_bridleway" where a path is signed as a bridleway, regardless of whether the thing on the ground is a "footway", "bridleway", "track" or something else.
I'd also add "foot=yes" for footways and bridleways, and "horse=yes" for bridleways (and perhaps also "bicycle=yes").

No problem. there were actually only a couple of nodes left - I deleted them in changeset/37852628 . One was west of Rockall; the other between Norway and Iceland.

Hi - just for info, node/33367561/history got added in the middle of the Atlantic.

Was everything in this changeset supposed to be in Norway? If so, none of it was - I can delete the things from the Atlantic that haven't already been deleted if you like.
Cheers,
Andy