我相信您恢复的变更集是试图创建“boundary=disputed”区域，例如 relation/17296617，与 https://osmfoundation.org/ 上的内容一致 w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf “我们已经并将继续建立机制
可以记录替代方案并在更适合您的地图中轻松使用”。
你没有任何讨论就将其恢复，这是不行的。
我确实注意到，admin_level=4 及以下的一些对象是boundary=administrative 对象。 这在 OSM 中并不罕见。 一些国家常常声称“管理”他们无法控制的地区，但实际上只是假装他们控制了。
请以文明的方式与该变更集的作者讨论您的问题 changeset/148136531 等？
我实际上建议 https://community.openstreetmap.org/ 是最好的地方。

I believe that the changeset that you reverted was an attempt to create "boundary=disputed" areas such as relation/17296617, in line with what is written at https://osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf "We have and will continue to build mechanisms
where alternatives can be recorded and easily used in maps more suitable to you".
You reverted it without any discussion, which isn't OK.
I do notice that some of the objects here at admin_level=4 and below are boundary=administrative objects. That isn't unusual in OSM; countries often claim to "administer" areas that they don't control but only pretend that they do.
Please discuss your problems with changeset/148136531 et al with the author of that changeset in a civilised manner?
I'd actually suggest that https://community.openstreetmap.org/ is the best place to do that.

.. and elsewhere other than Acomb.

Thanks!

Also adding real 20 stops mostly from survey, some from naptan

Hello again,
The alignment of the unnecessary duplicated railway at way/15934943#map=19/53.13350/-1.34717 is incorrect. I actually surveyed what is now the cycle track while the sleepers were still in place. There is only one feature here and it is both a current multi-use path and former railway.
Best Regards,
Andy

The official route of the PF to the old Castle Howard Station has always been as https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/54.09157/-0.87598/H/P shows it. Previously, in around 2018 at least, signage was poor and the nearest thing to a path joined to the guidepost node/6143841068 directly.
However, the landowner has apparently reinstated the correct path (and added a fence, making it much clearer where the path goes - a much needed improvement).
I've reflected those changes in this changeset here. There's more to add (any new Centenery Way or public footpath signage, the new fence).

Sigh. osm.org/user_blocks/15734 .

Why did you add "railway=site" to node/55441678/history ? Other than being on the railway line to Malton there is nothing here. Historically there was a station here, so "historic:railway=station" makes sense, but "railway=site" (undocumented at railway=*?uselang=en-GB ) does not.

Laddove ci fosse una divergenza di opinioni, suggerirei sicuramente di discuterne con la più ampia comunità italiana, sul forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/it/60 .

Where there is a difference of opinion, I would definitely suggest discussing it with the wider Italian community, on the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/it/60 .

and some others

Also 11 bus to Bishopthorpe

Oops - should have been from "SomeoneElse" account.

Oops - should have been from "SomeoneElse" account.

The feedback on the list has been that amenity=parking isn't the best option here - see e.g. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-December/031011.html and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2024-February/031140.html .
Other options used around the country include "escooter_rental" (the previous tag here), "scooter_parking", "small_electric_vehicle" and "kick-scooter_rental" (although I'm not convinced that last one is technically correct).

Thanks!

Hello,
On node/990208722/history , what does "passenger_information_display=prepared" mean?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Actually, that one was interpolation, not survey