Can you also make sure that this is done for all the other edits you've done alongside this as well.

Those edits are so far back that we can't know for sure what the source was, but if they've remained in OSM, then there's a decent chance they're valid.

Please don't do any more find and replace edits like this without discussion, as per the automated edits code of conduct. Even if you're manually doing it, it still counts, and that discussion would have ensured that the correct replacement tags were found.

See osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct for more information.

If those changes weren't verified in some way, these changesets should be reverted for breach of AECOC.

How did you verify that this petrol station doesn't serve food and that HGVs are not permitted to enter, outside of the existing amenity:restaurant and amenity:truck_stop tags? Because if all you did was search and replace those tags, that's explicitly listed as an automated edit.

That's not the only tag I'm concerned about, plus the HGV tag is about whether they're allowed there or not.

Did you verify that each of these stations does not allow HGVs to enter, and that they don't serve food at all? If not, you've done an automated edit without consultation and this should all be reverted.

The brand changes are usually just rebrands, the stations themselves stay the same. However, the main concern was the tags that you changed, where the meaning of the old tag isn't the same as the new one. If you haven't verified those changes, they should be reverted.

Definitely seems like a mass (incorrect) re-tag across multiple changesets without any actual verification.

Does the lack of a truck stop mean trucks can't pull into here? And the lack of a restaurant doesn't necessarily mean food isn't available. I think this (and any other edits like this) should be reverted, as they seem like a mechanical edit without a review.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170982586

Also, is Waverly Orthopaedic Clinic really a hospital, or is there a better tag for this?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170701905

Revert SEO edits added to whole building

changeset/170695564

Revert SEO edits added to whole building

changeset/170695564

Revert SEO edits added to whole building

changeset/170695564

Hi, you've added this onto the building as a whole. I've reverted it, if you wish to add your business, please add it as a node within the bounds of the building.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170601778

There is the possibility they're signed as part of a walking/cycling route, but if not then I'd say removing it is fine, if it's a highway=footway way.

Designated means there's some kind of signage.

Access=no isn't needed since it's assumed by default that cars can't go on footpaths, you generally only need to add restrictions if it differs from the norm. You've actually excluded bicycles here, which are legally allowed on footpaths.

Hi, is there a reason for tagging access=no? Also, is there signage for walking, if not then foot=designated isn't correct.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170473566

Hi vajayjay_u,

Your changeset comment seems to indicate that you're using sources that you haven't mentioned in your changeset tags. Can you let me know what the source for these edits are?

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

Google Earth isn't a source we can use, if you have other edits that have been made based on Google Earth and that can't be backed up by another source (or that you haven't confirmed in person), they should probably be reverted.

Fully agree with what you've said, and if there's concerns about how dangerous something is, there's likely a way to tag it as such. Similar to how we tag private trails and roads as such instead of removing them.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170366795

Hi, this building doesn't match up to what's showing on aerial imagery, has it recently been built?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170234486

Hi Peacock 7784,

Can you please explain the reason why these have been deleted? Do they no longer exist, or has something else happened to them?

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group