Yea looks like 1547. note
- the orthogonal corner in the top left
- the orthogonal corners in the bottom left.
- the lighter coloured vertical 'stripe' in the bottom left is flat. It looks to be worn, like the top half of the plaque.

"standing stone" is not per say part of the name, see

- osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

- osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

(or it would be explicitly in the name, with capital letters. not that this is always done. of course, in descriptions people will often use any text case -lowercase/uppercase- for the object type regardless if it's part of the name or not)

though for historical objects this is a grey area. Especially if a historical object does not have a name, it may be discouraged to add name=Standing Stone (or variants), but if it has a name some people may consider it part of the name others not.

So for historical objects with a name it's kind of up to the local community.

The wiki page

osm.wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site

currently uses a link to Wikipedia which by default displays the page name as Wikipedia formats it (which is only the name, without object, also in the description).
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutkamp

and for further specifying the type of archaeological site, recommends the subtags archaeological_site etc.

Same goes for if it should have a name at all. If it is not signed, but sourced (from elsewhere) based on local knowledge (not that all these are sourced based on local knowledge..), then it could be indicated with source:name=Canmore;local knowledge, or source:name=Canmore with local knowledge in changeset source, or similar. (Alternatively, the name could be tagged as loc_name -local name- or similar, but usually the name tag itself is used.)

Feel free to change it, though it'd be fine to leave it as-is. You're welcome to discuss the formatting on the tagging mailing list/forum for a broader opinion.

Hey miche101,

Kennen Sie die Regeln für automatische Bearbeitungen? (Ich nehme an, ja)
osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an die Mailingliste (oder die Foren). Ich bin kein Experte für diese Leitlinien.

Are you are aware of the rules for automated edits? (I assume so)
osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

For questions, please ask on the mailing list (or forums). I am not an expert on these guidelines.

Regards,

Daniel

PS: If you know whether the water crossing is a ford or bridge, feel free to add it.

Hey,

Fyi I have made the following changesets and note in this area;
- osm.org/changeset/130662320
- osm.org/changeset/130662427
- osm.org/note/3497100

These do not directly change any highway classifications.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey M_Kucha,

I have fixed two copy/paste errors from this changeset;
- https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=130559862
- https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=2671320365

Regards,

Daniel

Left a note with possible POI details
osm.org/note/3493675

Hey kylenz_linz,

One of the peaks you imported may or may not be a duplicate of Mount Erebus. There may be other such cases, but I have not checked this.

respectively
osm.org/node/9099483080/history
and
osm.org/node/515093744/history

Regards,

Daniel

Hey onelittlehelper,

Welcome back to OpenStreetMap. If you need any help to get started again, reach out to OSM Ireland over at
https://openstreetmap.community/?map=53.32403,-7.80553&zoom=5.77

Regards.

Daniel

Fyi, not important;

- For Saint Kieran's Street, there's also an old_name tagged.
osm.org/way/26650837

- For The Parade, the historic name Castle Street is different from the other segment's current name Castle Road. Are/were they interchangable or not?

Be sure to check these other segments

William Street
- osm.org/way/84151670

Chapel Lane
- osm.org/way/177814380
- osm.org/way/83864032

Poyntz Lane (tagged as old/historic name)
- osm.org/way/840478376
- osm.org/way/840478375

fyi for other users, changeset comment was meant to be:

changed site_type to #archaeological_site

Hallo Frontiersman,

osm.org/node/302362940
Warum hast du leisure=fitness_station zu den Tunneln hinzugefügt?

Wenn es eine Fitness-Station gibt, füge sie bitte nicht zu einem anderen Objekt hinzu, siehe
osm.wiki/DE:Ein_Objekt,_ein_OSM-Element

Wenn du Änderungen vornimmst, sei vorsichtig, damit sie nicht an anderen Objekten hängen bleiben. Sie können dazu die "Alt"-Taste gedrückt halten, dann können Sie sich frei bewegen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Daniel

Hey Tilia_J,

Deze camping is nu verdeeld in twee vlakken zonder verschil in tags. Een is
osm.org/way/1056231171
Ik denk dat dit vlak verwijderd of samengevoegd kan worden. Anders stel ik voor om bv. een "note" tag toe te voegen om het verschil of de nodige informatie aan te geven.

Je wijzigingen, ter informatie
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=120387763

Groet,

Daniel

You should change it to place=islet

Based on your other changesets, you must've just forgotten to do this.

Hey kkrish11,

This change looks ok. Noteably though, it looks like the road may lead to an (underground) parking garage.
It may be useful to add the tag fixme=incomplete to the node at the end of the way to tell mappers the service way may continue from this point.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey kkrish11,

Simply removing the layer tag does not resolve the tagging issue here. We can see the way goes into a building and can even refer to street level imagery.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=215810520051157&focus=photo

From here, we can make proper changes to the way. I would suggest splitting it where it intersects with the building, and adding covered=yes to the segment which is underneath the building.
You can then remove layer=-1 from this and all the adjacent segments.

Please do not make changes to incorrect tags when it does not resolve the tagging issue. This may be considered as mapping for the validator (there's still an issue, but it will no longer show up in validators.)

This changeset has been reverted here
osm.org/changeset/129204376

Regards,

Daniel

Hey kkrish11,

Could you explain your changes, please? It looks like you created a redundant split in a way (no tag changes); it should route just fine as it was, besides the OSM model does not prohibit such loops.

Your changes
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=129198493

Regards,

Daniel

@Mateusz Looks to be accidentally tagged while mapping
osm.org/way/1101352021

V1 was created by Heinz_V, who split the administrative boundaries in what are supposedly the Tehsils, without further specifying any relations on, or deleting, the newly created ways
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehsil )
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=73124217

Could you remove it and contact Heinz_V, please?
(Sidenote: iD will give a blocking warning when trying to save an empty way.)
Iirc India has opened up some of its data so it's likely the data can be filled in / replaced properly.