All good, accidental deletions are easy to do so just making sure. Good edits. There's a tag disused:highway=bus_stop that can be used where the street furniture/signage remains. It can be useful to prevent people from adding them back to the map.

Thanks for your contributions. I notice several bus stops were removed that still appear to exist on street view. Just checking this was done deliberately and if there's a source for the removals. Your edit showed up on https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious#10/52.6826/-1.6802

Apologies for the necro post, but since this has been linked elsewhere, I just want to point out that admin boundaries are often not aligned to MLW in the UK. For examples check around Rosyth and Boness (OSM currently shows the same as OS Boundary Line there.)

The timetable does still mention the Fife Circle service (marked K) for only two services Edinburgh -> Glenrothes with Thornton via Dumfermine (returning to Edinburgh via Kirkcaldy) (6:48 M-F, 21:55 Sun)

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/media/74350/download?inline

In any case, I have removed the stops/stations from the route and updated the tags in changeset/176641400

So should this relation be removed or retagged with a different scheme? The via/from/to and various roles for stops doesn't seem to fit with a route=railway

I mean relation/12023977

@Vas111 did you mean to change way/12023977 from route=train to route=railway? My understanding is that "train" should be used for passenger services.

Yeah, I'm not sure quay fully makes sense here either. I might just remove the embankment and leave it unadorned for now, which matches other areas I've seen like this.

@Mastrick_Mapper I don't think man_made=embankment is the right tag for this. It's generally used to mean a built up slope rather than the wall of a quayside. If you look at e.g. Victoria Embankment or the banks of the Seine in Paris they don't use this tag. I'm thinking of tagging the area as man_made=quay instead. Thoughts?

Fixed: changeset/175892606

@GinaroZ I've posted some analysis here:
@jwheare/diary/407915

I'll fix my edits to remove the duplicate leisure tagging.

Thank you for checking my edits. The tagging of slipways seems quite non-standard.

The recommended approach seems to be to tag the way as highway:service service:slipway and the final node should be leisure:slipway

From leisure=slipway

"The highway=service that is part of the physical slipway is often further refined with a service=slipway. Keep in mind though that this does not replace leisure=slipway, mapped as a node on the end of that way."

I think what's causing the visual duplication on the map is the leisure=slipway attached to this way which should potentially be removed, leaving it on the node only:
way/436559271

But there are multiple approaches that people seem to take. What would you recommend?