Is there a crossing island at node/12980053851 ?

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I wouldn't add "trafic_calming=table" tp the whole of way/1441998851 ; if you look at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gOQ you can see how it is more normally used on ways.
Best Regards,
Andy
PS: Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

I don't know much about UPRNs, but just checking - is node/27212056 OK?

osm.org/user_blocks/19111
osm.org/user_blocks/19112

Thanks!

Hello,
Is way/338502643 really a forest of palm trees? I know that southwest Scotland has the Gulf Stream, but this seems a bit unlikely :)
Cheers,
Andy

I think it was "missing presumed sunk" wasn't it?
See changeset/154996123 and the links from there. That one Mastodon reply remains, but I'm sure at around that time there were more links to "cruise ships failing to see it" etc.

Oops - I think that something's gone a bit wrong with way/238218979#map=19/52.032914/-0.550840 and way/238218977#map=19/52.033010/-0.550553 . They used to join - see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gDg from a few days ago, but now there's a gap in the public bridleway and in the "Greensand Ridge Walk". See https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/52.03304/-0.55017/H/P .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Andy from the Data Working Group here - just picking up a couple of points from the above:

> I also confirm on OS maps.

For the avoidance of doubt, we can't use that as a source for OSM, unless it's either out of copyright (many old maps are) or released under a compatible licence (like OSM OpenMap local. However, none of these will tell you much about the current state of a path or track (but if, as you have, you've visited as well, whatever the OS says is moot).

> Footpath only, so access all is No, foot is designated

Yes, something signed as a public footpath as way/1455397161/history is here should be foot=yes or designated (as well as designation=public_footpath), but the fact that something is a public footpath doesn't mean that other traffic is "no" - I can think of plenty of counterexamples from permissive bridleways to farm show access roads and more besides.

> Marking as yes to All results in apps/maps that use OSM showing these as if they're a ROW.

I don't think that people have suggested that - the tag changes on the northern bit can be seen at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/1455397161 and the other part https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/119370360 . No-one has tried to suggest "access=yes" here as far as I can see.

As to what way/119370360 should be tagged as, "access=no" or "=private" would make sense if there were e.g. gates and/or big keep out signs. However, "=permissive" would make sense where there was genuine permissive access, as would not setting it if it really wasn't clear.
I can think of plenty of examples of all of those.
Best Regards,
Andy

(for completeness - @b-unicycling/diary/407814 )
Thanks!

Thanks - down to 388 now...

You can't edit the source in the changeset tag but you can explain in a bit more detail here how you did use various sources when making this edit.

OK - done, thanks

You can't change the changeset source tag, but you can explain in a bit more detail what sources you used to make the edit and how you used them.

Thanks!

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!,

On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK. If not, we'll have to undo this change.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!,

On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK. If not, we'll have to undo this change.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!,

On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK. If not, we'll have to undo this change.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!,

On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK. If not, we'll have to undo this change.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!,

On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK. If not, we'll have to undo this change.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group