tI assume youre referring to the relation tag:
type = traffic_sparation_scheme

youre correct,  however there are a significant number of relations with a type of either
"traffic separation scheme" or "traffic separation scheme".

I have a feeling i didnt actually change the type tag for the relation for this, but if i did was only following an established precedent to ensure the data was consistent.

in fact the relation "In the approaches to Hook ..." uses "type = site" and then "site = 'traffic separation scheme'" - this in itself is an outlier in terms of commonly used convention - and describing a traffic separation scheme as a "site" seems inconguous (and in fact its the only one describe this way).

I did write a long email to someone in the OpenSeaMap community regarding the "standards for describing traffic separation schemes - as yet I have had no response.

I'd prefer a consistent use of one value for traffic separation schemes rather than the current variety, but there seems little purpose in making a change (that possibly goes against convention) that has not yet been agreed as a "standard" approach.

In fact the issue is wider than merely traffic separation schemes and the sub-types used for the components of a scheme. really the discussion should be widened to include maritime routing measures in general of all varieties.

I'm always happy to contribute, but I did spend some considerable time reviewing the wiki and existing practice in the database - as far as possible i've tried to avoid introducing anything new in the way of convention, while adhering to what seems to be the most common existing practice.
