Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

From looking at the edits to way/176772112 , you might be looking for somewhere to "experiment". If so, please don't use the main OpenStreetMap database for this. If you go over to http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org you can make all of the test edits that you like there and no-one will complain!

OK, so if I want to park my bike at Tesco's in Southampton I now need to bring an American Express card :)

node/2211564469

A couple of other questions come to mind also - (a) have you surveyed all of these or are you assuming that "because it's a Tesco it'll take Amex" and (b) is it appropriate to even store individual common payment types?

Mechanical edits such as this should get discussed first - see osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct for the reasoning. In the case of (a) as you found out it's simply not safe to assume that "if most things labelled as shop A do X then all do". In the case of (b) there are arguments on both sides - there's absolutely no point in tagging that my local corner shop takes cash but you might consider it noteworthy that (say) the Devonshire Arms in Cambridge takes bitcoin - and the place to discuss where on that line Tesco's taking Amex is is I would suggest the talk-gb mailing list.

I notice that you've deleted a number of untagged "fixme arrow" ways such as way/28406968/history . Are you going to complete the mapping there, or indicate (perhaps via a note or a fixme tag) that there's work still to be done there? Otherwise it looks like the area's complete and it's not; the previous mapper deliberately left it so that there was more work obviously to do.

Is node/3334096485 really a peak? What evidence is there that this name applies to the hill at the top, as opposed to just the wood? Is there a sign on the ground or some other indication?

Aber welche Fehler, und wo?

Was this mechanical edit mentioned anywhere, if only so that the previous mappers of these objects know to use "aeroway=windsock" rather than e.g. "man_made=windsock" in the future. In the case of node/815602323/history that previous mapper was me, and I wouldn't have spotted the change had it not overlapped where I live.

What's wrong with "http://keepright.ipax.at/"?

What's the access on way/57833863/history ? It's currently set to "permissive;yes" (you changed it from "permissive;ye" but both are clearly garbage values.

It's worth mentioning the amenity=bank page (specifically the "bic" tag part) here so that people know what's happened here.

(as with the other canals) what's the evidence you have that these canals are actually usable by motorboat? Have you actually surveyed them? I'm familar with some stretches of canal in this are that are definitely not navigable.

If you're just guessing, or copying from wikipedia, please don't - adding "random" tags like this devalues the hard work of people who do actually go out and survey things.

Geographically, this is a huge changeset. "Correction erreur" doesn't really describe what was done and why. In future could you perhaps explain in a bit more detail what the changes are, and make each one smaller?

This is a huge changeset. As a regular mapper, how do I know what has been affected near me?

Has Pilgrim House node/3366846093 really moved to the North Pole?

A tiger? In Africa? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLdk2C25Z14

Seriously, what actually was the change that was made here?

Hello, I think that something has gone wrong with way/232185079/history . It is now "designation=public_bridleway;public_footpath". Have you perhaps merged a footpath and a bridleway together by accident?

Just wondered what was the source of these changes? The changeset source says "Bing", and individual items either say nothing or "Yahoo;NPE". The reason that I ask is that there's at least one canal locally that is potentially "boat=yes; motorboat=no" (though I haven't checked the signs recently). Have you actually surveyed these on the ground (or checked with local mappers that have surveyed these on the ground) to ensure that these tags are correct?

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Just spotted way/347277628/history east of Dishforth - if it's actually a public bridleway then you can add a "designation=public_bridleway" tag to make it clear what the legal status is. I'm mentioning this only because OSM's documentation is "far from obvious".
Cheers,
Andy

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Just spotted that you'd added "bicycle=yes" to part of the A509 south of Olney (I've never cycled it, but I've spent many hours in a car in traffic jams there). If a cycle router is not routing down a trunk road without "bicycle=yes" it's actually a problem with the router, not the underlying data, since it's perfectly legal to cycle on trunk roads in the UK unless there's an explicit prohibition. Garmin maps can be prepared in many different ways from OSM data; which one had the problem?

This looks like a very similar sort of change to changeset/31388665 , and the same issues apply. Have you actually verified all of the locations here to ensure that they are a traditional "steak house" and not a restaurant or other food place that happens to specialise in steak?

A quick glance finds way/58728260 which probably _isn't_ a traditional "steak house", and I'm sure there will be others too.

If it's the same sort of change as changeset/31388665 then this changeset will need to be reverted too.

Foel Crochan node/3536209148 appears to be misplaced here. According to the "NLS - OS 1:25k 1st Series 1937-61" imagery used in your edit session, it's actually down the slope towards the slate quarry. In fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberllefenni_Slate_Quarry says that it's actually the name of the slate quarry, and the Welsh "Grochan/Crochan" apparently means "cauldron" - so not a peak at all.

What is your source for placing it at the top of the hill, and for it being a peak at all?