No net change to Ireland relation/3070643 here - see http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=3070643 . I just selected it by accident and then deselected it.

Hello (and welcome to OpenStreetMap!),
I hope you don't mind me asking a favour - is the Laurel Inn up the road still closed due to Covid? I'm guessing not now; it was when I was in Robin Hood's Bay last year node/1359823766 but I haven't had chance to revisit.
Thanks,
Andy

Hello,
Just for info, I've filled in a gap in the in part of the Fen Rivers Way near Ely. Originally it was https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bJn , it was then changed to https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bJo (presumably because the path here runs along the road), and I've now changed it to https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bJp .
Hopefully this is OK...
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
In this changeset some unlikely tags have become attached to the "Cumbria Coastal Way" long distance path, such as "designation=public_footpath" - you can see the at http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=1603791 .
Do you know which way there were intended to be added to?
I can help fix it if you like.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks - interesting that your fix at way/987781894#map=16/51.1492/-0.7955 caused iD to change something further down at changeset/111918710#map=17/51.15085/-0.79558 !

With regard to the any data that might have been copied from HMLR, we have:
1) the geometry
2) the access
(1) in OSM isn't from HMLR because it was presumably originally traced from and still matches imagery compatible with OSM's licence.
(2) isn't an issue because (a) changeset/111778180 states that no data was copied from HMLR and (b) that changeset also states the local knowledge that the access here is private.

Hello TrueMapper,
From looking at http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=150181117 , there seems to be something of an argument about whether way/150181117 actually exists. From looking at the available imagery, it certainly appears that it _does_ exist.
The status of it (including whether it is private or not) of course can't be determined from imagery, but in changeset/111778180 you said it was private, and in changeset/111984355 I notice that someone has added "access=private", so hopefully that should be that.
Please don't delete it again unless it _really does not exist any more_.
If you've got any other questions about OpenStreetMap, please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group/

Seguendo changeset/111689713 , ricordati di digitare un commento...

Following on from changeset/111689713 , please remember to type in a comment...

Hello,
> That history display purports to show no access tags by several contributors.
Not sure I understand that?
To see how the tags have changed on that way you can look at way/977813230/history , or to see a tabular display of the same data
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=977813230
Best Regards,
Andy

The Lachin corridor had been changed from https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bG6 to https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bG5 in a previous changeset. This changeset changes it back.
The ceasefire agreement http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64384 says "The Lachin Corridor (5 km wide), which will provide a connection between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia while not passing through the territory of Shusha, shall remain under the control of the Russian Federation peacemaking forces".
Shusha presumably means relation/6851481 in OSM terms (alternatives for the "district" are relation/11905590 and relation/11871220 , but the corridor can't avoid those and still be a corridor).

Hello,
After the change here there's now a gap in the Saxon Shore Way: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bFV . Is it perhaps signed from the B2067 up Roman Road?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
This changeset added a "spur" to the Saxon Shore Way - before it looked like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bFT and after it looked like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bFU . Was that deliberate? Sometimes paths like this have spurs that join to other roads, but sometimes they get added by accident.
Best Regards,
Andy

If the whole thing is better tagged as a restaurant than a pub, then change the tag on node/492510160/history (I'm not a local).

Hello,
Thanks for splitting Foss Islands here - I think it makes sense.
I've moved the Foss Walk and the Millennium Way onto the footpath at the side of the Foss Islands Road (no sign, but it's where you'd end up walking if you followed either route - see relation/370667#map=18/53.95891/-1.07197 and relation/370674#map=17/53.95904/-1.07211 ).
I'm not sure what relation/13282370 , relation/13282371 and relation/13282368 are supposed to be for though - osm.wiki/Relations/Proposed/turn_lanes makes no sense, has never been widely adopted and (see @andygol/diary/35489 ) is quite controversial - turn=*#Turning_indications_per_lane is more common if you want to say "what lanes there are and where you can go from them".
Best Regards,
Andy

Just as a comparison, at osm.org/#map=19/54.04349/-0.99931 is something that I added as "trail_visibility=intermediate" in the UK. On the Bing imagery in OSM it's actually quite clear, but most of the year on the ground the paths can be tricky to see - things change with the seasons, and also in some places from year to year.

> based on Bing imagery clearly showing the north side of the trail
That's a bit of a stretch, to be honest - at different zoom levels Bing shows me to different sets of imagery (one greener than the other). You can maybe say that there's something there up near the stream on the "less green" images, but I'd struggle to call it a path, and I'd be reluctant to add it to OSM based on what Bing shows.

... and for completeness the reason that I'm commenting here in New Hampshire (somewhere I've no local knowledge of) is that someone has mentioned the same issue elsewhere (somewhere I am familiar with) to OSM's Data Working Group, which I'm a member of.
Best Regards,
Andy

If you're going to add off-piste or unofficial trails, then I'd suggest you actually need to survey it yourself, so that you can get the access, surface, trail_visibility etc. tags correct. Just adding lots of "highway=path" because you've seen something on Strava devalues the work of people who do actually do proper surveys nad take time to get the tags correct.

(to address some comments above) I map walking trails a lot myself and "there is a heavy walking activity on Strava which determines that it is a walking trail" wouldn't, on its own, be enough information to add something to OSM. There's information that someone was there once (or at least nearby, as ZeLonewolf says), but nothing saying what is there - there's no value to add to OSM.
I've spent lots of time local to me chasing down alleged trails added from Strava in this manner, many of which don't exist where they've been added, or don't exist now.