Why have you changed "loop" to "roundtrip" on relation/1355711 ? It says "loop" on the signs, not "roundtrip". The previous mapper was I suspect trying to say "this is part of a named National Byway Loop section" not "this happens to be a cycle route that starts and finishes at the same place (whether the loop=yes tag was a good way of doing that is of course a different question).

Please don't edit things remotely that you don't understand the context of without trying to find that context out. There are lots of potential contact channels - you could ask the previous mapper, or ask more generally in talk-gb or #osm-gb.

You've removed a tag from way/47438462/history ; was that deliberate? It looks like the previous mapper was trying to indicate a pedestrian area that the name referred to (or perhaps a group of features). Perhaps local mappers would be better placed to decide how to map that fact rather than you? Maybe add a note if you want to draw their attention to it?

What's the evidence for the name and location of node/30000436 ?

You've changed node/304452970/history to not have an apostrophe in it. What evidence do you have for this? The previous edit was by someone who goes out and surveys things; did you do this here or are you just copying from some other source without checking yourself?

The wiki's supposed to document tagging practice, not restrict it - if a particular tag has been deliberately used and it's not documented in the wiki it's the wiki that's wrong, not the tag.

If it helps to get another "British English" sense of "building=office" vs "building=offices", I'd certainly have a different mental picture of each (and it's not just about the size of the building - a building set up to contain multiple office will often have different features to one just containing one - shared reception and security might be one example, but there are others).

Thanks - I'll add a note nearby asking what it might mean.

I've correct this in changeset/30357784 . I was there only the other week and it is most definitely a bed-and-breakfast and not a guest house.

Ah - that would explain it. I saw the logs blocking the previous entrances at the top.

It doesn't really matter who it was named after, or what would be grammatically correct, does it? Surely we should record the world as it is and not as how we would like it to be (you also changed way/32117507/history last year; I corrected that back based on resurvey).

What is your evidence for way/338996658 actually existing? It didn't last week...

What are the current access rights on way/338787736/history ? There was a path here previously marked as private way/315390104/history ; has the "private" sign been removed?

Seems wrong that "name:en" and "name" are different, too. What was the source of the change?

(adding this comment as a note in case anyone tries to reconcile these nodes in the future)

There's a bit of an offset at least in some areas with these. For example, node/338591136/history which was at osm.org/#map=18/53.2556111/-1.0081667 according to this import is actually at way/271670229/history , somewhat to the southwest (this direction of offset seems to be common in North Notts). See also node/338601431/history and way/292578549 . Note that a number of sites that were marked as disused were definitely in operation as of 2014 - I suspect if varies according to the oil price.

Yes, I always thought it was "Cotton" too. It was Cotton originally; I wonder why the previous editor changed it?

node/29869677/history

Was the removal of the landuse=grass tag from way/305829722/history accidental?

Was the bridge:date on way/58534834/history the date of the current bridge or the date of construction of the road? Current tagging suggests the latter, whereas the former is surely more likely?

Hi, you've removed an "operation" tag from node/1765363499/history that clearly wasn't railway related. What steps did you take to try and make sure that whatever information the original mapper was trying to add here didn't get lost?

Is the stretch of water at way/60696168 really called "Notts" or did something go a bit wrong in the editing?

Did you have a look at the history of any of the items that you changed here, such as node/986157422/history ? The only edits to it are the addition and removal of extra tags. Clearly there's a discussion to be had about how to tag these things but the best place for that is NOT within the OSM database.

OSM doesn't have restrictive tagging - you can use any tag you like. Regardless of what the wiki page author wrote, the Anglican church is a figuratively a very broad church (pun intended) with some members that aren't "in communion" with other members, so if a previous mapper thought that a particular tag was appropriate here you should respect that - or at the very least try and suggest an alternative that does not remove surveyed information from OSM (unless you've actually surveyed it yourself, of course).