I'm guessing that the board node/412486673/history is back? It is currently both "tourism" and "disused:tourism" :)

Thanks!

Hello, I'm guessing that "designation=footpath" on way/32243391/history should be "designation=public_footpath"? See http://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe:great-britain/keys/designation#values for values.

Is the name here really "Auto Electricial"? "Auto Electrical" (without the second "i") would be more likely.

There's actually a spectacular variety of tagging around the country so I've asked at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-December/031009.html .

I'm guessing "contruction" should be "construction" here.

What does "per referendum" mean?

Thanks

Hello,
What's the source of the "farmboundariesewfalklands" data in this changeset and others?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

With regard to path naming, if something's part of a route relation, things can decide whether or not to show it already, like https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#14/52.9975/-3.0157 (disclaimer - I created that).

Actually, we can't use wikipedia as a source because its licence isn't compatible with OSM. I know that sounds bizarre, but sometimes licensing results in bizarre outcomes. :)

This user was blocked at osm.org/user_blocks/15449 and then deleted their account. The user name was "SοmeοneElse" which is "SomeoneElse" spelt with omicrons instead of lower case "o"s.
It is likely a sockpuppet of @Olaf%20der%20Mapper .

Your addition of node/11388694489/history just seems to be garbage here?

Your edit to node/410742644/history looks like garbage to me. Got any evidence for it?

osm.org/user_blocks/15439

Bonjour,
Veuillez ne pas ajouter de marqueurs personnels à OpenStreetMap de cette manière. Utilisez plutôt les signets dans MAPS.ME.
Cordialement,
Andy

Hello,
Please don't add personal markers to OpenStreetMap in this way. Use bookmarks in MAPS.ME instead.
Best Regards,
Andy

OK - now joined up along the towpath - hope this is OK: relation/22602#map=19/53.19308/-2.89906

In addition, this changeset is merely "Upgraded old tags" and is clearly just a mechanical edit to the unclear tags chosen by this "vote".
osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct was not followed. If it had been then the users of the data changed here (including the iD editor!) would have been aware. Because it was done "in secret", they were not.

To be clear, 20 people thought that that proposal was a good idea. Compared to the number that edited OSM in the last 24 hours, that's 0.37% - it's an insignificant proportion.
To add to that, _none_ of the proponents of the tag were able to address the issues raised during the voting - their replies simply showed that the did not understand how these objects have historically been tagged in OSM.