Re "Also, what designation do movie homes get?" generally speaking, they don't.

If a house appeared in a movie once but there's nothing on the ground to indicate that, then it shouldn't be mapped in OSM.

Likewise "tourism=attraction" is only valid if the place genuinely is a tourist attraction - i.e. people visit it AND are invited in. If that's not the case here (and I suspect that it isn't) then it shouldn't get the "tourism=attraction" tag in OSM. Similarly it shouldn't get the name "Eilish House" unless that really is the name of the property (and again, I suspect that this is not the case here).

The video you have linked to seems to be almost entirely content-free.

My recollection is that the trig point is exactly at the top of Roseberry Topping...

Some proof, such as a photo of the actual house name, would be good.

> I don't see how this differs from the Crimean Peninsula.
As I already said above, "That case was widely discussed within OSM including at board level".
If you believe that this case deserves to be a similar exception from the normal https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf policy please discuss it on an international list - right now, https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk is probably the best place to do that.

> You mean, Crescent Moon Island Dubai?
No, I asked about islands "controlled by Iran", and in changeset/123563171 linked to the overlapping relations.

The change was in changeset/120185536 . Unfortunately the changeset comment used there was inaccurate - it says "added disputed boundary for Abu Musa Island, Greater Tunb Island, and Lesser Tunb Island" when in fact the boundary added was _not_ a disputed one.

See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1kag and https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1kah - this changset added some island controlled by Iran to also be part of the UAE's admin_level=2 area.
See also changeset/123563171 .

> How this differs from Ukraine
That case was widely discussed within OSM including at board level.
The general rules for disputed boundaries can be found at https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That says "Currently, we record one set that, in OpenStreetMap
contributor opinion, is most widely internationally recognised and best meets realities on the
ground, generally meaning physical control".
Do you believe that the UAE has on-the-ground control here?

Currently there is some overlap between relation/307763#map=9/25.7442/55.1215 (UAE) and relation/304938#map=9/25.9025/55.1842 (Iran) here.
Can you justify that?
Normally OSM uses the "control on the ground" rule for "boundary=administrative" areas, but also allows disputed boundaries to be added too.
Wikipedia thinks that the ground situation is "controlled by Iran" (regardless of claims or who _should_ control the territory). Can you provide any evidence to the contrary?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Please avoid trying to make political points in changeset comments.

@LockOnGuy From looking at
node/2488265639/history , it appears that you started that particular edit war in changeset/120405986 - before that the name tags were mostly settled. The current situation is a hyphenated name - that seems like a "least bad" option.

The changeset comment here "Racism efforts reverted..." doesn't really help at all.
Perhaps instead say "This garden is a national statue for a Kurdish hero and clearly needs to have a name that at least contains the Kurdish language".
You've now changed it to a hyphenated version, which is much better.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello, your changeset comment here is "Revert vandal edits by user Bravo Mapper". Can you explain exactly what the problem was? Looking at the history of way/631551001/history it just looks like there is a disagreement over the language(s) that should be used in the name tags. This isn't vandalism, and calling it vandalism doesn't help anyone.

Yes - I've moved way/267115820 to the west. OS OpenData StreetView is good for road alignment (except where they've changed in the last 10 years or so), and pretty good for stream alignment, except where an "artistic" gap has been added between a road and a stream, as was the case here, and where streams have moved.
I've not done anything with the section north or south - tha northern bit is alongside a road and might need realigning too.

Oops, wrong account. Should have been @SomeoneElse_Revert .

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/123560227 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some fantasy mapping

Hello ConsPh,
That doesn't answer the question.
It was actually a closed gate before - who is allowed to go through here?
Best Regards,
Andy

Comment here should have been "Tidy up following changeset/123429454 "

It was actually a closed gate before - who is allowed to go through here?

Perhaps a photograph of what there actually is would help?