Yes, this tagging makes much more sense and is more popular for the same thing.

https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Whetstone_Interchange isn't really anything that we can use, is it? Without any source information (e.g. to a photograph of a sign) it's just a page on the Internet that someone made up.

Hello,
Where did you get the name "Heath Interchange" from here?
It's not signed, but this junction is universally referred to as "Heath".
I ought to know - I used to live just down the road.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
What was the source of the junction name on the nodes here? I don't ever remember it being referred to as that, and I've driven up and down here (and walked past here) a lot over the last 30-odd years.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
What was the source of the junction name on node/318483/history here? I don't ever remember it being referred to as that, and I've driven up and down here a lot over the last 30-odd years.
Best Regards, Andy

Hello,
Andy from the Data Working Group here. I'm struggling to see what the chnages to e.g. Engelbrektsgatan were. Looking at changesets that changed nodes there such as https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=129341173 the actual adjustments are tiny!
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello again Bravo Mapper,
Thanks for mapping all these things here, but please - like I mentioned before in changeset/129212685 (and previously) please try and use better changeset comments than just "new".
Best Regards,
Andy

That's unfortunate. It means that the very features that you are interesting seeing represented won't appear on maps.

> when nothing is done about it on the map.

Sorry, which map? I'm trying to follow these sorts of updates at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/54.09292/-1.40412 . When it goes live, https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/commit/847110530be646b5d74f87bf7200e4be44377490 will show these properly with the icon for megaliths again rather than "generic archaeological site", and that's reflected at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/archaeological_site=megalith#projects . However, there are a bunch of projects at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/site_type=megalith#projects that presumably are unaware of osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site . I know that at least some of those people don't speak English as a first language and can't be expected to keep up with the chatter on the mailing list. It is impractical to monitor changes to every wiki page (and impossible to monitor changes to ones that don't exist yet), so that isn't really an option either.
I'm sorry that you "didn't enjoy this at all"but I am literally trying to get stuff you're interested in rendered on a general purpose map (see also https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/place_of_worship=mass_rock#projects and e.g. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#21/55.17687/-7.94255 .

The approval of a new way of tagging something doesn't imply that an automatic edit should take place (or is approved to take place). As osm.wiki/Proposal_process says "a vote result is never permission for large-scale re-tagging of existing objects".

For an automated edit I'd have expected to see something at osm.wiki/Category:Automated_edits_log , but would personally have been perfectly happy just to get a nudge about a forthcoming data change based on https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/site_type=megalith#projects etc.

Oops, looks like you've broken some data consumers :)

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/site_type=megalith#projects

shows projects consuming the data before you changed it.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/archaeological_site=megalith#projects

shows people consuming your new tag.

I happened to spot it only because I was updating taginfo.json about something else, and a check here showed that the rendering at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/54.09292/-1.40412 was now just "generic archaeological site".

This should be covered by osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct of course. I'm sure that no-one would object to the change, but it's just common courtesy to tell people when something they're expecting in one form is going to change as the result of a "change all A to B"-type edit.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

The DWG would be happy to "just revert this" if it would make sense to - drop an email to [email protected].

Hello,
Please don't use the live database for testing! There's a test "dev" database - can you use that instead? Search for "Sandbox for editing" in the OSM wiki.
Best regards
Andy

Great - thanks.

@Thomas Jarvis - thanks.

Thanks - I've actually posted about the other breakage that occurred here on the community forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/changes-to-the-usa-canada-border-at-the-southern-end-of-alaska/6327 - you might want to comment there.

Thanks - I'll make the multipolygon a national park and remove the tag from the outer ways.
(over the next few days, probably)

Hello,
Any idea if the bit of road outside the church should be part of relation/91128#map=19/52.45276/0.69071 , or whether it's the northern bit of the relation that's wrong?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Should relation/14510149 (which is a multipolygon relation) perhaps be tagged as a national park? Currently way/1058319833 and way/1101045559 are tagged as national parks, but I'd have expected that if they're part of one national park that the tags should be on the relation not the outer ways?
I'm not familiar with Jersey (beyond watching Bergerac as a kid) so I've no idea how these things work here...
Best Regards,
Andy