Removed in: osm.org/changeset/141912494

Hassan Arara has again changed the admin_level back to 2 in osm.org/changeset/141780003.

There is no substantive evidence to suggest this region of Sudan is a separate country and should not, therefore, be tagged as admin_level=2. If you disagree and can provide actual evidence please engage with: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/west-darfur-masalit-tagging/104208

I have reverted back to admin_level 4. There appears to be no international basis for considering this region a country. I also think the name change is not supported but have left for now.

osm.org/changeset/141774129

Source: cornwall_council_prow_gis_data

Have raised in the community forum - and also about name change: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/west-darfur-masalit-tagging/104208

Fair point! I hadn't noticed that edit. I've raised this in the community forums for discussion: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/traffic-calming-island-in-the-centre-of-a-roundabout/103954

Hi, in this changeset you added traffic_calming=island to the centre of a roundabout. This doesn't appear to match the documented usage of this tag. It's probably worth discussing more widely (forums/wiki/mailing lists) before using a well documented tag for non-documented purposes.

Hi,
It looks like you created two untagged ways in this changeset:
osm.org/way/1179840550 and osm.org/way/1179840551
Presumably this was by mistake and these should be deleted?

Discussion on approach taken here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/splitting-beach-into-dog-access-sections-edit-sanity-check/102460

Discussion about splitting and using relations for sub-division/access tagging: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/splitting-beach-into-dog-access-sections-edit-sanity-check/102460

It was (and actually still is) tagged as disused:highway=path which is essentially the same as highway=no. However, in the latest edit (osm.org/changeset/138237627) it looks like highway=track has been added. Which to me seems incorrect. I've commented on the changeset and linked back to here.

Hi, it looks like you've added highway=track to the Cross Bay Walk PROW route. Personally, I don't think this is the right approach since there is no real highway to use. It's worth reading here: osm.org/changeset/93427676 for a discussion.

No worries! Just to note, though, shouldn't "deep=0.5" actually be "depth=0.5"?

osm.wiki/Key:depth

I don't think I would have added a tag like that. Which specific way/node are you referring to? I found this: osm.org/way/625584880/history but it looks like it was actually you that added the tag when you first created the way?

Hi, this changeset resulted in an untagged line which was previously part of a natural=scrub area: osm.org/way/792836196/history
please consider fixing/removing

Hi, this changeset seems to have resulted in a bunch of tagless points in the map data (e.g. osm.org/node/1158392291). I'm assuming this wasn't your intention?

Hi, the Woodland Walk is a public footpath - so won't have "opening times". I wonder if the opening times instead refer to the waterfall/visitor centre? In which case, the opening hours tags should only be added to those parts.

Hi Andy, thanks for the heads up. Restored in osm.org/changeset/133173731

Hi, did you physically check the local authority's definitive map and statement for this route? And not just their online data - which can be incorrect/off. I think, since you are mapping on behalf of the National Trust there is a higher expectation on you to make sure you do not detrimentally edit the map. So if you are 100% sure this is not the public footpath route (i.e. you have checked the physical map and statement and discussed with the local authority) then you should also add in the correct route of the public footpath rather than just deleting the tags from the other path.