Please use meaningful changeset comments - “amended content” does not help other mappers understand what you are doing. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments :)

Thanks :)

Reverted in changeset/117736454

Aha, that makes sense. Thanks for sorting it!

Agreed, I thought this was a public road. The Strava heatmap shows it as taking a lot of cycling traffic: https://www.strava.com/heatmap#15.73/-2.78517/54.22022/hot/ride.

What’s your reasoning for this change, AllotmentCyclist? :)

Hi, this edit seems to just delete things which appear to still be present in satellite imagery. Have you surveyed the area and found that scrub and scree to have disappeared? Can you provide some context for your changes please? Thanks

Done in changeset/117197314 — please say if anything doesn’t look right, or go ahead and make further improvements :)

Nice! I’ve just found this plaque which corroborates that: https://openplaques.org/plaques/11279

I’ll change the tags back on the building, if that’s OK with you? Thanks for taking another look at this :)

It’s labelled as a school on OS Six Inch maps from around 1900 (which are out of copyright, so are OK to use as source material for OpenStreetMap):

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=19&lat=54.19125&lon=-2.91237&layers=6&right=ESRIWorld

Oh, interesting, I didn’t know that was a possibility. I was just going on the basis of the previous tagging in the map. I’ll do some digging

What’s the thinking behind this change? The building was previously tagged as a school building, which means that it was originally built as one; building:use says what the building is currently used as.

Was the building not originally built as a school, or has it been demolished and rebuilt? Thanks

OK, good to know! I’ll re-add it, but tagged as removed, so that others don’t re-add it from the satellite imagery as if it’s still there.

Done in changeset/117196297 — how does that look?

Hi, has the railway crossing been physically removed, or is it just locked?

If it’s locked, it should stay on the map (but tagged as access=no to indicate that it can’t be used), as it might be unlocked in future. Also other mappers may see it on the satellite imagery and re-add it without knowing that it’s locked.

Thanks

I have reverted those changes in changeset/116670966, since they really don’t look correct — see the tagging schema: osm.wiki/Relation:boundary

The changes you’ve made to the Saskatchewan boundary look incorrect. I assume they were accidental?

See https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/391178

Your latest edits look great, thanks a lot :D

I’ve changed it in changeset/116660853. Please say if building:levels=0 was actually intentional and we can put it back how it was

Hi, you added building:levels=0 to way/570932879 in this changeset. I’m guessing that was an accident, as it doesn’t make sense!

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your recent edits!

When making an edit, can you please provide a more descriptive changeset comment than ‘.’ — descriptive changeset comments allow others in the OpenStreetMap community to easily see what’s been changed in an area, and why. For more information, see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks!

Fixed in changeset/116536101, see what you think. Sometimes it’s easier to visualise changes from a changeset using a tool called Achavi: http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=116536101