I was very pleased to find this mapped and walked it today, but I found it a bit misleading, because the hiking trail leaves out some of the very interesting sites like the Roman baths and the cart ruts. Would it maybe have been better to map it as a relation type=site rather than suggesting a hiking path that misses so much? It would probably also a good idea to add the inscriptions of the information board to OSM, since some of the physical ones are already very hard do read.
I've captured mapillary imagery while walking it, maybe that will be useful.

They're purpose built as tea houses in the 19th century and both vacant. I guess building=retail would work.

thanks for pointing it out

I wouldn't know the ethnicity of the shop owner, but it's a Polish shop. I don't know if that means all the products are from Poland.

I think that tag was already there, when I added the pound tags. I didn't want to interfere with it.

I don't know what happened there, but it should work now.

No, "ecclesiastical enclosure". Just go with "enclosure", I'd say. And sub-categorize (enclosure=ecclesiastic), if you like, but there is no convention for it yet. You can do whatever you like, basically, just don't map it as a ringfort.

Oh dear, thanks for reverting; I hadn't noticed.

Nice work. I'm done now browsing through Wikimedia.

It has a picnic table in it on wikimedia and seems to be considered a "pocket park", so no typo.

All your taginfo links prove is that "pound" is a word much more often used than "pinfold". You would have to check what the "pound" in all the placenames refers to. "town pound" is also used in the United States, I have come across no instance of "town pinfold" yet, so it is a word used not just in the South of England. I'm not trying to get rid of regional words, but we need a standard that is understood intuitively by people.

I don't know what you mean, they are mapped as two separate things - an area for the pound and a building for the lockup. I can't split the wikimedia image in two.

Also, Historic England calls it a "pound": https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1149031, even thought they use both terms in their database.

I don't think we should start allowing for regional tags for features that have had a specific standard label on maps for over 150 years. I could agree to changing the value to animal_pound, but I'm yet to encounter a historic car pound.

If I interpret the wikimedia source correctly, the large one is for animals and the small one for humans. There are a few more cases like that, where the lockup is next to the animal pound.

SomeoneElse has already contacted me over it, and I've apologized to him and said he could revert the change sets.

There seem to be differences between Ireland & Britain and Continental sites, according to the talk page on the wikipedia article.

The names containing "Hillfort" will remain which doesn't make things easier for classifications.

You're right, of course. Please feel free to revert the changesets.
I suppose it was a combination of being frustrated by the proposal process, getting carried away after watching a documentary about hilltop enclosures and thinking I know best. As you might be able to see, I haven't even made up my mind about whether to class them as fortifications or not.
I actually lay awake last night thinking that I maybe went too far, but then I got distracted with something else and forgot about it today.

I've moved them

Yup, you're right, I used the tag from memory (false memory, probably parallel to "hiking"). All fixed now, I hope.

According to the Sites and monuments records and Wikipedia, there are two. The Western one is not complete, though.