Hi,
Something went a bit wrong here - way/344120051/history and a number of others were in the South Atlantic.

Cheers,
Andy

... and I suspect it'll also apply to the northern bit too (though I didn't get chance to look for a sign there).

It did look like an official sign from Yorkshire Housing. It wouldn't surprise me (given the history of the area - until surprisingly recently post-war prefabs) if it was a private road.

Does node/3392408789 actually exist? It seems to be placed between the road and the buildings. Perhaps an OSM note might have been a better way to check it rather than just fiddling with the tag?

(as with the grit bins) "amenity=bench" says "this is a bench". There's no need to create a "name" for it too.

Actually, I'm guessing that it doesn't have a name (and if it does it isn't "Grit Bin"). A tag of "amenity=grit_bin" will allow any map that wants to render it to do so - there's no need to give it a name too if it doesn't have one.

Oh - and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

@chillly - probably worth waiting a couple more days for a reply before doing so.

In more detail:

I walked past where node/3505971351/history should be / have been and there was nothing obvious there. If you want to add historical places, add them to OpenHistoricalMap.

node/3505959273/history was already mapped as way/342292800#map=18/53.70020/-0.80106&layers=N . I deleted the "isloated_dwelling" from a farmyard (the added node was neither isolated nor a dwelling).

node/3505963210/history and node/3505963211/history simply aren't verifiable.

node/3505963204/history was a duplicate of way/66348869

You've added node/3505971350 as a "locality" yet surely this is actually the name of a bridge - but where exactly is it? Also you'll see from changeset/10475119 (by a mapper who actually goes out and surveys stuff!) that the road has "not:name=King's Causeway" on it. Therefore even the name that you copied from another map is likely to be wrong.

There's clearly a spelling discrepancy here - have you checked that node/3505953184 actually exists on the ground and if it does that it is not misspelt? node/3505953183 should be verifiable - have you checked it on the ground?

Why have you created node/3505951521 as a duplicate of way/315387104 ? I'm sure that many of the other names in this changeset are similarly problematic. Have you actually surveyed this area or are you just copying from some other map, without checking how accurate that map is or isn't?

Rather than adding things that don't exist any more such as node/3505214822 to OSM as v1 items, perhaps http://www.openhistoricalmap.org might be a better place for them?

Do any of these places actually exist? Just because a name has (for historical reasons) found its way onto OS maps doesn't mean that it's still valid. If you believed the OS, you'd think that the village I live in is actually five villages with different names. It's not...

node/3470869736 is a duplicate of node/1919438184 - why did you not update the existing node?

Like this, no - I just noticed the forum post about it. I did write https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/Changeset1 to look for certain sorts of issues locally by new users, but "nothing but deletes in the changeset" isn't currently one of them.

There was a more general GSoC proposal this year osm.wiki/User:Emacsen#GSoC_OSM_Anomaly_Detection_Project_Description , but I'm not aware that it has been greenlighted, though a number have - see http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/projects/list/google/gsoc2015?PageSpeed=noscript .

Thanks for fixing this!

Cheers,
Andy

Does node/3502245294 exist? Is it really a bookshop that repairs carpets? See also note/360588

node/3474297493 is in the middle of the sea - how was this place "automatically created"?

Thanks - I've added note/360564 as a reminder for when I (or anyone else) is next in the area.

Hi - something went a bit wrong here. There was a couple of nodes at latitude 0, longitude 0 - I've deleted them.