You have marked the fish pass as part of the river! I had mapped it properly from gps surveys. You seem to have just deleted that. Please be more careful. I will try and fix that when I have time.

suc -> such.

Likewise asphalt.

Please consult the source tag. oneway=no is the default. If it was oneway, it would have been mapped as suc.

Completely wrong around Baytree Hill in Liskeard. What was your source?

You have introduced an error on the map by this edit. Rumours Cafe in Liskeard was previously mapped separately from the building. You seem to have deleted that, and added my tags to the building. That is WRONG. The building houses several shops and businesses as well as the cafe.

Please do not override local knowledge and survey with inaccurate data.

Tags for cafes and the like should not normally be on a building except in exceptional cases when it is known that the building is dedicated to that single use. And perhaps not even then.

If you have done this elsewhere, it should be reviewed.

Should this bridleway have
designation=public_Bridleway ?
See osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom

It is a little while since I was there.

A typo on Moor Avenue water works?

But that has meant the the map is wrong! I am regularly surveying the site, and I will update the situation as it evolves so the the OSM map is accurate as possible. Guessing from imagery is OK when there are no local mappers with local knowledge and reasonably accurate repeated gps surveys I have just done another survey a few hours ago and updated to the current situation. The map now is a pretty good representation of what is there now, at least where accessible.

Are you sure? I surveyed this place about 1 day before your edit. All this was fenced off construction, so I could not get to this area for a proper survey. I think this is probably a construction road destined to be residential.

Outdated Bing imagery is not likely to be of much use if that is really what you used.

I checked yesterday: you are right. The ditches are there. But the ones on the south side are overgrown, so were not very obvious.

Are you sure about the ditches on the South side of Deer Park field? We both know the area, but I don't think I have ever noticed anything like that there. I cycled past a few hours ago and I didn't notice anything: but I wasn't paying particular attention. I have only just come across these "ditches" on OSM.

Were you able to walk this path? I have tried several times, but it was always overgrown and indistinct. Has it now been improved?

I need to check, but these are gated access roads to parts of the Farm Museum. We would not normally map them.

This is a private drive. We do not normally map these in the UK unless they are particularly long or are significant in some other way. At least you have now added the right access, but where is the remotely controlled gate?

Actually, the stones in the centre are smaller than most of those on the circumference.

I did consider historic=stone, but I tend to use that for much younger pillars. Last century and even medieval, but not for archeological stuff. So I have tagged several stones on the moor that way but they are maybe only one or two hundred years old. So history rather than prehistory. Hence my choice which I think is reasonable among the existing tags.

Actually, at least one of the stones maybe rather modern. There was some reconstuction in the 1930's and it think at least one of the stones may have been replaced.

OK. There is no need to remove embankments if you have good evidence for them. It is only the ficticious ones that we worry about.

As for erasing history, you managed to do that when you replaced, rather than moved, the 'stones'. The Hurlers stones are not very large and I wasn't entirely comfortable with tagging them as megalith_type=menhir, but that seemed the nearest match, and indicated an ancient artifact. It all depends on how big something has to be to qualify as "mega".

If you are interested in this site, by far the best online source is http://readingthehurlers.co.uk/ . I know several of the people involved in that excavation.

Thank for reverting this. However, a quick glance at your other edits suggest that you have done similar things at other sites in the UK, and perhaps further afield.

Presumably you have no local knowledge and have not surveyed these sites either?

If that is so, please also revert those changes also unless you are quite certain that you have more accurate information. I see embankments again which are also perhaps ficticious. And it looks as if you may have erased history as well.

First, the previous answer, with which I agree, was not from me.

What you are doing is "tagging for the renderer" which degrades the map. We take enormous care to map accurately what is on the ground, and not invent fiction to make the map "look" right. As SomeoneElse says, if you want a particular display, then you should be either write your own renderer, or ask the authors of an existing renderer to modify their code. You should not tamper with the existing tagging where you have not surveyed the site yourself unless you have excellent copyright free objective information which is obviously better than the existing state.

In this case, SomeoneElse already has a renderer which did what you wanted.

If you had looked at the history and checked the public gps traces, you would see that this is a very thoroughly mapped site.

In this case the individual stones were linked by a way tagged as megalith_type=stone circle. That was there partly so renderers could display something suitable. And it was a reasonable thing to include even though the only marks on the ground are a only few indications of wear.

The fact that there may be some historic maps that just happen to show stone circles that coincide with what one particular renderer uses for an embankment is supremely irrelevant.

An embankment always involves at least a change in height, and these stone circles are on a very flat area.

I am also extremely unhappy that you have removed information from the information for the individual stones.

The name and source have been removed. I have repeatedly taken multiple averaged gps waypoints on most, if not all, of the individual stones. Removing tags like that is just vandalism.

Even worse, you have *changed* those accurate coordinates. Frankly, how dare you? Where did you get better coodinates? What is the point is my contributing many hours and accurate information, just to have someone throw it away?

I see that you have made similar edits to other historic sites of which you would seem to have no knowledge. Unless you can justify them , I believe that you should revert those as well.

What embankment? I know this area very well and have extensively surveyed here. There is no embankment.

Please explain your source. I think this should be reverted.

OK, Untagged way fixed. It was a parking place.