Hello jcphal,
I have noticed that you are still using site_type= to specify archaeological sites. This tag has been deprecated and archaeological_site= is meant to be used instead, see e. g. here:
site_type=*

I fixed it at a tumulus South East of Pierrefiche today.

Sorry for the inconvenience. This was a global quality assurance edit, identical for about 120,000 POIs: “site_type=” has been removed where there was a “archaeological_site=” tag with the same value. To track the changes, you can find the documentation here (step 2):
osm.wiki/Automated_edits/ChillyDL#site_type_to_archaeological_site_implementation

Danke!
Das war wohl ich vor ein paar Jahren ...

Hello MichaelCollinson, I see you mapped four historic=archaeological_site as site_type=fort. "fort" is not really in use for archaeological sites, so I changed the value to "fortification".
Also, you may want to switch to archaeological_site= instead of osm.wiki/Tag:site_type=; site_type= having been deprecated for archaelogical sites.
Best regards!

Hello Lutalica_1974,
I am not sure about this POI. Could you give the source of this entry? Müller/Reimers described this dolmen as destroyed in 1893, Sprockhoff could not find any remains as early as in the 1920s, there is no mention in the Denkmalatlas Niedersachsen, and there is nothing to see on any aerial image.
We do not map non-existant objects.

Ich glaube, der Verein sollte besser als Node in dem Gebäude getaggt werden und nicht als das Gebäude selbst, oder?

All well, let's do it like this.
And yes, true, referring to "site_type=" as deprecated in this context was misleading. It is not.

I did not decide on their status as archaeological sites. They were not tagged as such, but used the deprecated `site_type=industrial` where other objects in the area use `historic=industrial`. The situation in this case was that in the Yorkshire Dales and North Pennines, a tagging as `historic=industrial` is fairly common, introduced by a user about three years ago. It does not have a documented definition, and it doesn't seem fitting well within other "historic" values because it doesn't tell what it actually is/was, like you write. But this being the local scheme – albeit not always consequently in its details –, I used this scheme with 6 objects to keep local consistency.

This makes sense to me, but I can undo this with these objects.

For a more comfortable view of the changeset, see Achavi:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=131806091

Hello SomeoneElse,
I suppose you mean your questions as always? This is only the 3rd time we talk about a changeset, and never before did you ask those questions. So for us a first time.

The tag changes in these 16 objects were mainly the removal of redundant "site_type=" tags, occasionally with other details added like from aerial photography.

Since this is not a mass nor a automated edit but simple database quality assurance in a mere dozen cases, I saw no need for a discussion.

Hello zolt d,
I see you deleted archaeological_site= and turned name:en to name:es for the English name for Cueva de los tayos as well as Cuevas de Tayunts.
Both is surprising - can you let me know why?

Hallo cayenne11,
das Lautariusgrab ist ein Hünen-, kein Hügelgrab, siehe z. B. Wikipedia-Artikel. Ich habe es wieder zurückgetaggt.

Hello LaurieTra,
thanks for your contribution. Would you please also name the source of the information that this hotel exists at this position? Thank you.

Please see the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/atmotorway-tagging/9535

Hello LaurieTra,
thanks for adding this camp site. Could you also give the sources, i. e. how you know it exists at this location?
Generally, it would be great if you could do so any time you add something, so others can follow. Thanks!

Hello Eebie,
yes, this is intentional. Please see the link in the changeset summary: There had been a less then optimally prepared and communicated and then aborted mass edit of archaeological sites after the vote to deprecate osm.wiki/Tag:site_type=. We are trying to fix this problem at the moment, centrally having a duplicate tagging till July so data consumers will have the chance to adapt, which had not been the case so far. Normally, this adaptation period should have taken place BEFORE a mass edit.

As far as I know these are stones collected from the landfill that used to be there and that were freely arranged in the mid-90s, when the tip was turned into a park. The tagging "ruins" is from the user who added them to the database 11 years ago and who also warned that this is not a historic object.
I am not convinced this actually is art, rather landscape architecture. But I suppose it could be re-tagged as tourism=artwork and artwork_type=sculpture, if you prefer this.
What do you think?

Hello Aya Samir,
I see you changed all the roads I added yesterday into tracks. Could you let me know why? These are not minor land-access roads but serve as a connection in the general-purpose road network, which according to the Wiki makes them roads, not tracks. Some are even paved. From all I know and read in the Wiki, they should be tagged as highway=unclassified.

Also, may I kindly ask you to use more specific edit summaries? "Modify some ways and tags" is about true for I suppose 95 % of all edits in OSM ... ;-)

Oh, absolutely right! Thanks for letting me know. I fixed it.

Ah, I see - thanks! :-)

Hello Raretrack,
I see you changed wikimedia_commons= from linking to a category to linking to a single file responding to a maproulette challenge. This puzzles me - the maproulette rightly states that linking to a category is one of the aims of the challenge. A single image shall only be chosen if there is no category available, see the wiki: wikimedia_commons=*
I am therefore re-instating the category.