Apologies - I forgot to join that back up. Thanks for doing so.

Well spotted - for some reason I hadn't noticed that I had selected the admin boundary rather than the section of road - doh. Looks like I did it right the first time.

A quick google of "Colvin's Knowe" reveals that this marking on the OS maps is like to be the site of an old chapel and cists which no longer exist, or are no longer visible on the groud - see https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/record/hes/51094/colvins-knowe/rcahms. This ties in with the old OS map you found which also says 'Stone Cists found' - a cist being an ancient coffin or burial chamber.

Your choice of 'locality' as a tag therefore seems reasonable. 👍

A knowe is a small hill. The open OS data has it in a slightly different place, outwith this field. The current OS Explorer map has it in this field.

Thanks 👍

They're not duplicates - there's a footpath with a sort of cobbled track immediately adjacent to it which leads to a slipway.

Thank you for the tip on map alignments. Is there a forum somewhere I can discuss such issues?

Yes - it's a grass field. There is a gravel path that ends at the southern edge of the field, but no actual path across it.

If WayMarkedTrails is not capable of showing both low and high tide options for the Fife Coastal Path, then WayMarkedTrails needs modified so that it can do so. I note that it currently does not show any of the low tide options.

Please also explain why you have split the main Fife Coastal Path relation into two separate relations.

You've also quoted WalkHighlands.co.uk as a source. All material on WalkHighlands.co.uk is copyright material, and unless you have written permission to include information on it on OSM, you should not be doing so.

I have only seen this update. The Fife Coastal Path website is incorrect in a number of ways - the organisations which manages it has also made a hash of mapping their other long distance route - the FIfe Pilgrim Way - on their website. You should not be making such changes unless you know that they are correct. For the avoidance of doubt, the changes which you have made are not correct per the actual route on the ground.

Please also explain why you have split the Fife Coastal Path into two main sections.

The Fife Coastal Path has alternate routes for some sections. Both low and high tide options are equally valid, with the low tide option being preferred.

Why have you removed the low tide routes from the Fife Coastal Path again? STOP DOING THIS PLEASE.

The 3 elements which you removed are not superfluous - they are a signed diversion route for when a short section of path, which is prone to flooding, is flooded. I have added them back.

Also, some low tide routes have been removed from the relation. I don't know which changeset removed them, because OSM won't show me the history (website times out).

The Fife Coastal Path has alternate routes at some parts - these are all (apart from the above noted flood diversion route) low/high tide options. The low tide option is preferred. Neither should be removed from the relation, as both options are equally valid parts of the Fife Coastal Path.

Reverted to previous version using history in Potlach

You're right - I must have missed the sign on the lamppost. I've checked on Google Street View and it shows the sign on the lamppost as well. I've rerouted it back via the flour mill site (which is seems doesn't actually have a gate across the road itself) and Pathhead Sands.

Yes. The way it was previously took it through the flour mill site, which was never the route. I'm not sure why someone would even think that was the route as the access road is gated off.

The gaps are between adjacent features which are already on OSM. Since they are adjacent, it makes no sense to leave a gap between them. A good example is the many "farm land" areas, where people have put individual fields into OSM, leaving gaps where the field boundaries are. This makes no sense, since the field boundary is itself part of the farmland - it just happens that it is a field boundary rather than part of the field itself. Similarly, where a feature is adjacent to a road (or path) and there is no other feature between it and the road, then it makes more sense to join that feature to the road, rather than leave a gap. Obviously this is not always the case, so where there is another feature in the gaps I have not joined them up.

Noted

This changeset erroneously set a road called "The Path" as highway=path. I'm setting it back to highway=primary since it is a main road, along with the roads it connects with.

Apologies - I spotted that someone had added 'sandpit' as a name on something at nearby Auchmuty High School and assumed it was therefore OK to do it that way. I will be more careful in future. I've also added 'tennis courts' as the name of the school's tennis courts - do you want me to remove that?

For the bowling green - the club is called Dovecot Bowling Club, but that includes the adjacent building which is the pavilion. Not sure how that should be entered on the map - presumably draw and area round the green and pavilion and name that as 'Dovecot Bowling Club'?

I accidentally deleted a node of the cyclepath - fixed by reverting using Potlatch 1 editor (after some digging). Sorry.

My mistake - fixed in osm.org/changeset/61728652