osm.org/way/312080900#map=17/52.85782/-1.55219&layers=N currently has an unfeasible dogleg at the southwestern end. Also see (different issue) osm.org/note/270036 .

Part of osm.org/way/27184678 was previously called "Main Street" rather than "Dark Lane": osm.org/way/15461905/history . Was an on-the-ground survey done to determine that the name has changed?

(see note osm.org/note/269951 )

Hi - just noticed that osm.org/way/127249165/history got deleted here. Was that an accident? If so, no problem - let me know and I can help to get it back.

It looks like osm.org/node/2341264287/history got reset from "cuisine=regional" to "cuisine=pizza". Surely a change such as this should be checked with a local or the original mapper?

I notice that on osm.org/way/34964091/history you've changed "amenity=art_centre" to "amenity=arts_centre". Is this place (Beaverbrook Art Gallery) really an "arts centre"? It sounds more like an art gallery to me. Have you actually been to all of these places to survey them, or checked with the local community to see what sort of places they really are?

If not, you really ought to be going through the "Mechanical Edit" procedure as described on the wiki.

I think that something went very wrong here - none of these roads are tertiary! I've changed them back in osm.org/changeset/26745242 .

From looking at the changes here (I'm familar with the area as I've surveyed most of the footpaths and live nearby):

osm.org/node/2137276876
presumably shouldn't be part of the road as well as the railway if the railway runs across a bridge

osm.org/way/203726475
seems to be an untagged duplicate of
osm.org/way/5746616
(at least in part)

osm.org/way/203726478
seems to be an untagged duplicate of
osm.org/way/44958846
(at least in part)

osm.org/way/212752864#map=19/53.19962/-1.40624
Is surely not tracks=2!
osm.org/note/269740

osm.org/way/55802814#map=18/53.28626/-1.43794
Is unlikely to be tracks=2

osm.org/way/29108373/history
has lost layer information when being redrawn as
osm.org/way/30167350

osm.org/way/62216854/history
has lost layer information when being redrawn as
osm.org/way/30167350

osm.org/way/213106230#map=18/53.16819/-1.39244
Seems to have lost (or never had) proposed electrification tags

osm.org/way/145334726
Seems to be an unfeasibly short unconnected spur

osm.org/way/312068364
Seems to be an unfeasibly short unconnected spur

(also added as note osm.org/note/269441)

Railway problems at Rauceby:

As currently mapped, osm.org/way/227726817 crosses the railway without crossing nodes and (more seriously) the railway lines run through the station platforms, which I suspect is unlikely.

This appears to be a mechanical edit - was it discussed anywhere?

Even if a change makes sense (which I don't know here because there has been no discussion), it's important that data consumers know that data has changed so that they know what to expect.

Also, what was the logic for changing the order of one tag (polling_station:ref) but not other related ones (polling_station:source)?

I notice that you've joined a footpath and bridleway here. What is the source for this? The footpath was "source=npe", meaning that it was copied from an old map. Are you sure that it still exists?

Would it be possible to use a more communicative changeset comment than "modified railway"? There are 5 ways in the changeset, and they're all railways, so "modified railway" doesn't tell anyone anything.

Useful information would include details of the survey that you performed prior to the edit, other data sources used, etc/

Unless you visited all of these places individually, this looks very much like a mechanical edit:

osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy

Was it discussed anywhere beforehand, so that people who may have been rendering "tourism=basic_hut" on their maps don't get a nasty shock when the look at their maps and don't see any?

Issues as with other local edits:

osm.org/way/189654508/history
you could make a case for abandoned here (as it previously was)

osm.org/way/189654508/history
is still visible in the aerial imagery, so abandoned would presumably be appropriate.

Issues as with the other local rail edits:

osm.org/way/227726817#map=19/52.98503/-0.45687
I'm not familiar with the area but) seems very unlikely as currently mapped

Some similar issues to the Nottingham/Worksop changeset also apply here:

osm.org/way/26378182
clearly doesn't double-back like that

osm.org/way/304779266
has also been mangled a bit at the south end

osm.org/way/84492908
has also been mangled. Note that the footpath does not go through the northern crossing.

osm.org/way/15455561#map=19/52.94642/-0.80099
seems to only go through one crossing

osm.org/way/76084290
is missing an interaction with the railway and other features

osm.org/way/16914779/history
you could make a case for that being dismantled or abandoned - not just being deleted

Looking through this in more detail:

osm.org/way/311380535
there's a parallax effect there. I suspect the both railway lines should be to the north slightly.

osm.org/way/289198996/history#map=17/53.28561/-1.18752
osm.org/#map=19/53.28573/-1.18874
there's very possibly a Bing offset here (though more GPS traces would help). As it is, the gates don't line up.

osm.org/way/289195062
Crosses the railway at-grade and is missing junction nodes

osm.org/way/131438385
based on the new GPS traces that have appeared since they were added, I'd say that the gates were in the wrong place here. The crossing nodes are also missing.

osm.org/way/81979513/history
osm.org/way/35052697/history
strictly speaking railway=abandoned was correct here I suspect

osm.org/way/194456593/history
osm.org/way/245699573/history
You could argue abandoned (or dismantled) as being correct here too.

osm.org/way/289195060/history
Was the footpath / rail crossing near Whitwell. It's been redrawn, but without a valid crossing node.

osm.org/way/289197467/history
similar, elsewhere

osm.org/way/42335982/history
has lost previously surveyed information (cutting=yes)

osm.org/way/311380489
(already mentioned) bears no resemblance to reality.

I think that something's gone rather badly wrong with this changeset. osm.org/way/311380489 certainly doesn't exist (I walked past Lockwood's haulage yard only last week and can categorically state that there isn't a railway line running through it.

I suspect that the change will need undoing, and it might be easiest if someone who's familar with the process does it. Would you like me to do that?

For info I'm currently not seeing any mention of musem here:
osm.wiki/Railway

or here:
osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Mappingwochenende_2014_1

or here:
osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Aktiventreffen_2014_2

or via a google search of "museum site:http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/".

http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=42
is the "3d" forum - there's nothing on the front page of that particularly relevant to railways or museums.

Where was the "openrailwaymap" tagging scheme proposd and discussed? Tags added for "openrailwaymap" will end up in everyone else's data too. Also, I'm not convinced that "railway=museum" makes a lot of sense. I'm currenly only a couple of miles from osm.org/way/59292078 and while it is most definitely a museum, if you went there to catch a train you'd be very disappointed. Lots of people (myself included) extract railway data from OSM - this is another example of the "if you want X from OSM you have to extract X but then exclude X=Y because it's not really an X" - it makes the data more difficult to use for data consumers and doesn't add any more detail.