way/22978301/history I wouldn't call that a forest track, it looks more like a service road at least for the start of the road https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/83XPAu3nOn6Ujq6HjTD5Bg. What do you think?

node/7517582145/history are you sure that's a ford, looks more like a bridge from what I can see https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/58_gREtq54I61EVh0g1cow

way/743296615/history was there anything to indicate this is only for use by customers? I've seen people bring their own craft into the water here while the shop was open and no one seemed to mind. I can't find any signage to suggest only customers of the rental shop can use it.

Hi, I can still see some kind of service road/driveway connecting these two streets on the aerial imagery, has that changed recently?

Hi, the centre node tagged as highway=turning_circle already describes this as a turning circle, so no need to trace out a separate way.

Not sure if you've seen osm.wiki/Climbing but worth a read if you're interested in doing more detailed mapping of climbing sites.

Hi welcome to OSM.

In general private driveways are fine to be mapped in OSM, so I've re-instated the driveway. I did add access=private to mark it as private.

Sorry I don't follow, but if something is wrong, please help fix it directly.

There is no need for a separate way here, the existing ways match the road centerlines already.

It's okay, we all started out at some point.

Great thanks for confirming and updating this based on your local knowledge.

Hi there, I know it was already mentioned on one of your other changesets, but since there is no physical separation the cycleway is tagged on the road so I've removed the separate way. Assuming of course it hasn't changed on the ground since https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/IRDwkKBLjWhigv8U1ucSTQ was taken.

Hi there, has this changed since this Mapillary image https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/P0ZiPLOeHZkeURNwrQubkg ? In this I can't see any counter-flow cycleway apart from the footpath.

My preference is usually to avoid mapping a path on a beach since there is usually no actual path there, just the beach and really you can walk anywhere on the beach. I understand for routing it makes it easier and if there is a well signposted route which traverses the beach it might make sense to map it as a path, but otherwise I'd be tempted not to.

That's okay, mistakes happen. One way to prevent this is always keep the original way and just tweak it's nodes, or in JOSM there is an approach to replace geometry while retaining the original way object osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

I've partially reverted this changeset in order to restore the history of https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/648268968 and reinstate the tags which were deleted.

I've re-instated the original building in https://osmcha.org/changesets/85121532/ in order to keep the history per osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history please next time re-use the existing way so we can retain the history.

Hi I can't make sense of these changes, I've reverted it out of caution. What was your intention here?

I've reinstated the buildings now, but still working through the aliment issue.

It's good practice to keep the history of objects osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history
Deleting and then re-adding looses that history and in this case also lost the information about the type of building. Further when something was added by a ground survey you should be extra careful about removing something since aerial imagery isn't that great compared to a ground survey