Why have you added a "historic=castle" tag to node/1337755941/history ?

If you have never visited somewhere, and don't understand what something is, please don't assume that the previous mapper has made a mistake. Ask the original mapper (in this case me) about it and they'll be able to explain why something was tagged as it was and what it is.

Just checking - (re note/417768) is the location for this actually correct? The house number suggests that it might not be?

No problem - I've removed it in changeset/33496623 .

Are you sure that node/3659454313 is really the intersection of the trunk road on the bridge and the smaller road below?

Something seems to have gone wrong here.
way/366779356 is a duplicate of
way/262201062 and seems to criss-cross it in a way that can't match reality. way/262201062 is already tracks=2 which I suspect is the totality of the tracks up here.

(s/on/only/ in my last comment)

(re changeset comments) Indeed, but almost all places where changeset comments appear don't show the history as well (on the history list in P2 does to my knowledge).

(unrelated to the content of the change here) could you _please_ use more meaningful changeset comments? Just saying "fix" simply says "I don't care about communicating with other mappers" OpenStreetMap is a big project and we all need to work together; and meaningful changeset comments are a real help in achieving that.

Re the licence (see http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License for details) what licence did they make the information to you available under? The "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License" mentioned on their download page is unlikely to be compatible with OSM as we can't guarantee downstream attribution on produced works (see osm.wiki/Legal_FAQ#3c._If_I_make_something_with_OSM_data.2C_do_I_now_have_to_apply_your_license_to_my_whole_work.3F ). I would suggest discussing it on the talk-gb list at least https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb .

You're still adding information that at first glance appears to be licensed in a manner not compatible with OSM. In changeset/33256350 you said you'd contact the data publishers and the wider OSM community; did either of these actions actually happen?

Hello! Just spotted you've edited way/176772112/history recently. I suspect that the tags on it are as a result of a previous editor "experimenting" - I added a changeset discussion to changeset/31365796 asking about it. If you can tag it properly ("highway=highway" is surely wrong) that would be a great help.

For info the name shows up at osm.org/#map=14/51.1585/-3.8956 . It's the green fill at z9 I'm wondering about. Need to wait for http://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/9/250/171.png/status to render before experimenting, though.

Thanks. It's rendering (as a green line) at osm.org/#map=14/51.1181/-3.8639 . Does it need an area=yes as well or any other tags? Compare relation/86909#map=16/51.1104/-3.8569 with relation/2176657#map=15/53.0966/-1.9545 (the Peak District, which displays at all zooms as expected).

For info - I don't understand the "object not closed" on way/307692844 as it's part of relation/3782630 . Obviously there's some mismatch on tags that needs resolving but it's not a non-closed object.

Hi - just wondered what was the source of the tag changes here? "natural=well" isn't very clear; how did you know what to change it to?

Hello - something seems to have gone wrong with San Francisco Airport at node/1087017101 - a node of one of the taxiways got dragged by mistake and joined to another. Do you need help fixing it?

Re way/224860823/history - d'oh! Thanks!

Re the "Coopers Hill foopaths are for feet" comment - previously way/32196229/history had two things stored against it "highway=track" and "foot=yes". Previously the "foot=yes" part that said "it's for feet"; the "highway" part just described that what sort of thing it looks like. Having public foot=only access over a highway=track is very common. Adding other tags too (e.g. bicycle=no) does makes sense though - it means there's no confusion about access rights. In additon, if it was signed as a public footpath, I'd also add "designation=public_footpath" to store that information too.

Also way/365452108 - that does not look like a house either.

Hi - is way/365452110 really a house? It seems unlikely.