For info it looks like this got reverted in changeset/30114581

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Just for info, you've moved the node that is part of the river, but in the editor ("Potlatch 2") you're using that won't automatically join it to the stream to the north - you'll need to click on the stream, delete the node at the end of it, and then extend it to join the river for that to happen.
Cheers, Andy

Any reason you removed the amenity tag from node/3360668597/history#map=19/53.44159/-0.84441 ? I just got it from taginfo and amenity=vending%20machine?uselang=en-GB

(but thanks for removing the cut-and-pasted-from-the-wiki extra space)

The edit here has removed the information that this church is high Anglican ("all bells and smells") rather than run-of-the-mill C of E or at the "happy clappy" end. Are you sure that the previous tag was wrong?

A number of parking aisles got deleted here - was that deliberate?

I created note/7295 a couple of years ago; I think that changeset/18273844 probably fixed the joining problem, and you fixed the car park boundaries here - but somehow the parking aisles got deleted at the same time?

Just for info - for the continuation of the "Gladstone Terrace" story see the discussion on changeset/30036375 .

Hi - I had the chance to walk past the end again yesterday, and someone's knocked the wall down that was previously preventing you from seeing behind the houses. It turns out that what is now way/337594226 is not actually a road at all, but a gravel track behind the houses. I've also amended the street names (and lack of street names) based on the available evidence. Hopefully this will make things clear until someone does a proper on-the-ground survey.

changeset/30093567

You've added the name "Badjunc2" to node/2626530032 . Is there any reason for this? I've never seen that name at that junction.

If something really doesn't have a name, you don't need to make one up for OSM.

Hi - just wondering if "The Whiye House" was perhap a typo?

I'd be a little careful trusting the Bing imagery here - it's around 2-3m out when compared with the underlying GPS traces previously uploaded to OSM (all of which you can see in Potlatch and JOSM but some only in iD - though if you're using Strava's iD then their point cloud would I suspect show just as much data as OSM's GPS traces).

Hi - I'm guessing that you've created way/337218669 to reflect some kind of personal route?

If that's what it it is, then the main OpenStreetMap database isn't the place for it, since there is only one map - everyone's personal routes would be shared with everyone else's.

As I suggested in one of the notes, http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ is probably the sort of thing that you're looking for - that would enable you to create a personal map just for yourself (and whoever you want to share it with) while not appearing on the same map that everyone else sees too.

As you've spotted, some of the newly-added paths and tracks in here are duplicate and unjoined. However, obviously broken geometry is quite useful at pointing out which paths in here need resurveying, which is why I've not tried to remotely "fix" any of the problems.

Also, seeing the user who added a particular path is quite useful at working out where it came from - one user added lots of paths without a survey from OS OpenData and earlier out of copyright maps. Many of these ways don't exist now (the wood's been revamped several times - once when the colliery and railways closed, again when Go Ape and the cycle loops opened, and again now the link to Vicar Water's open). Other users added the initial cycleways with varying accuracy (and the route of the main circular cycle track has since changed), I've tried to tidy the paths up based on GPS traces and a couple of new users have meanwhile been adding paths, some of which are duplicates.

Knowing which user added which path is really useful because it allows you to judge whether it is (a) just fantasy (b) probably in the wrong place, a duplicate or both, or (c) probably just mistagged.

If all of the ways in the forest were last edited by yourself or one of the Mapbox people it means when I'm sat in the middle of the forest looking at a Garmin screen I can't easily see what category a line on the map falls into. There are over 100km of paths in here, poor GPS signal (lots of trees!) and a poor GSM data signal - when mapping here it's nice to have as much information as possible about the problems that exist.

Obviously you're trying to "fix" the map here, but I'd suggest that here that's not going to happen without an on-the-ground survey to weed out not only the duplicate ways but also the ones that are in the wrong place or are for former paths that have since moved.

I notice that you've joined Gladstone Terrace to the footpath to the south (as your colleague did in changeset changeset/28255923 - see the comments on that). When I originally surveyed it it didn't look like there was any public route onto way/227325669 - I'd have joined it if there was.

I suspect that the area would still benefit from a local survey though (and it's a shame I didn't spot this changeset earlier today - I was about 100m away from this spot earlier this evening!).

Hello - I think that something's gone a bit wrong with changeset/30019226 . way/177024003/history was previously the wall between Tissington church graveyard and the village green; it seems to have been replaced with a linear "landuse=grass" way/337016680 . Is the wall really no longer there? I've not been to Tissington since last year but I'd be very surprised if it has been knocked down?

There seems to be a problem with way/335071309/history - it doesn't actually join to anything, so no cyclists would ever be able to get on or off it?

I notice that you have joined Rockside Cottages to the footpath.

When I was last there (last year), it didn't join. Have you surveyed the area since?

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Currently way/330911514 isn't actually joined to anything and I suspect that the name of it isn't really "A646 Cycle Lane" (at least I never remember seeing that name when driving down here).

In OSM, a "highway=cycleway" is usually used for separate infrastructure, not something that's part of the road (see osm.wiki/Cycleway ). What you might be looking to add here is probably better described as a cycleway=lane (if it's a lane on the road) or cycleway=track) if it's a separate track or a shared pavement.

Is Goose Lane way/124368378 really private with no other access rights? It seems odd that there is a public footpath way/124368397 running north from it.

Hi - I'm sure that you're doing it with the best of intentions, but please don't try and "join up" paths in this area without surveying first.

The additions that were made by a newbie in changeset/28873009 were problematical - lots of duplication, some very-offset-from-reality GPS traces, and some mislabelled highways (e.g. "path"). QA sites that identify geometry errors are really helpful at indicating which bits need a survey. If you join unjoined ways or remove overlaps, the result is just as wrong as it was before, but can no longer be identified as such by external QA sites. I know that I need to resurvey bits of Clipstone Forest around here, but please don't make that job any harder than it needs to be :)

Hi - I noticed that you've deleted way/182360890/history . Just checking that you'd been there and had a look and it really isn't there any more? My recollection was that earlier this year it still was - although I'd need to check to make sure?