Also way/953645603

way/953645602 was created here with "maxspeed=100;120". I'll revert back to the previous state.

For info, way/953647533/history was created with "maxspeed=80;60". I've reverted back to the problem merge at osm.org/browse/changeset/102972116 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Thanks for fixing the lane tags here, but not the maxspeed. I've reverted back to before the merge in 103388263. Hopefully everything still looks connected.
Best Regards,
Andy

> But name: tag has to be in Azerbaijani language.

Not necessarily - the relevant language for the "name" tag will be the one most used by people who live in the immediate area. If you can link to evidence that that's changed from pre-2020 then please do so.

I've restored these in changeset/107276459 , and also squared them up by pressing "q" before uploading.

I'm more than happy to undo changes where they were valid - but as I said on changeset/107272257 your deletion of valid entries elsewhere cast doubt on all your changes.

(to reply to an OSM PM received by me from İsmət_S) you're welcome to continue mapping things in OSM but it's not OK to make arbitary changes that reflect one side of a political dispute but not the situation on the ground. For example, if you believe that the local population's language justifies your changes to http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=10316068 in osm.org/browse/changeset/106983044 then please explain that in the changeset comment - but I can't imagine a reason to justify the removal of the name:hy altogether.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
The policy that governs how disputed areas are represented in OSM can be seen at https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf (see "The OpenStreetMap community operates under the “on the ground” principle" etc.). The "name" tag of places within a country don't necessarily match the main language used within a country (for the avoidance of doubt - relation/2374762 , which you deleted in changeset/106917429 , was always shown as a disputed area (admin_level=3) within the country (admin_level=2) of Azerbaijan.
Best Regards,
Andy

I've scanned the ways in here that aren't deletes, and although 209141784 was in error the others mostly look like improvements. The relation changes here do revert vandalism.

Hello İsmət_S,
Can you explain why you removed name:hy from relation/11905748 here?
Also, please always use good changeset comments. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Can you explain why you deleted relation/2374762 here?
Best Regards,
Andy

When I was last there there wasn't much signage on this section and to the Major Oak; though I haven't checked for some time.

There is a remaining gap in this relation at relation/1573819#map=18/53.94487/-1.90361&layers=H that needs surveying.

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/18Qk thinks so, yes. I'll fix it.

I've since had a look around here, and it's not feasible to get through (in June, on foot). Grass and scrub is about 3 feet high. Nothing is signed, no indication of anyone having used the path.

For info this has just been mentioned again at https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCJ2P6KCH , for much of the same reasons as discussed at changeset/71619765 including "doesn't seem to match what's actually there". I'm several thousand miles away and am therefore not in a good place to judge how good or otherwise it is, but am happy to help with a revert if that is thought to be the best route forward.

Hello,
I think that the ways that have been added to the Trans-Pennine Trail have accidentally gone into the wrong relation. They've been added to relation/4139041 , which is a "superroute" - a relation that contains other relations as members. I suspect that the should be added either to the Leeds-Wombwell section relation/10508149 or to a new relation which forms a spur up to Pinders Heath - assuming that that spur was deliberate and was not created by accident by iD extending existing cycleways that happened to be relation members.
I'm not familiar with the TPT here, but would be more than happy to help fix it if necessary.
Best Regards,
Andy.

Bonjour,
Le balisage de relation/2475084 est erroné. Seulement un tiers environ est l'A1, le reste est l'A9. Aucun des A1/A9 n'a un _nom_ de A1 ou A9. Notez également que de manière générale, aucune route E au Royaume-Uni n'est signalée. De manière générale, si les routes ne sont pas signées, nous ne les ajoutons pas à OpenStreetMap. Si vous insistez pour le faire, vous devez préciser que ces itinéraires ne sont pas balisés. Changer "ref" en "unsigned_ref" semble être le moyen le plus populaire de le faire ; J'ai également utilisé ref:signed=no et name:signed=no pour cela dans le passé. Si vous avez des questions, n'hésitez pas à demander!
Meilleures salutations,
Andy

Hello,
The tagging of relation/2475084 is wrong. Only about a third of it is the A1, the rest is the A9. None of the A1/A9 has a _name_ of A1 or A9. Also note that generally speaking no E roads in the UK are signed. Generally speaking if routes aren't signed we do not add them to OpenStreetMap. If you insist on doing so you should make it clear that these routes are unsigned. Changing "ref" to "unsigned_ref" seems to be the most popular way to do this; I've also used ref:signed=no and name:signed=no for this in the past. If you have any questions, please ask!
Best Regards,
Andy