if a router thinks you can cycle on a footway in the UK with no bicycle tag it is broken and needs to he fixed.

(no reply, but), the CKB article does seem to be a bit less "encyclopaedic" than the AR one.

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Looking at e.g. way/1019867805/history I don't think that there's any need to tag "bicycle=no" or "bicycle=dismount" on something that's tagged as "highway=footway; footway=sidewalk"; it's implicit (because it's a footway) that you're not allowed to cycle there unless there's an explicit tag such as bicycle=yes.
There normal use of "bicycle=dismount" is, as osm.wiki/Bicycle says, on short sections of signposted cycle routes.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks - I've removed these paths from the Bradford Millennium Way. The path now goes to the north:

relation/1573819#map=17/53.86051/-1.96326

Hello,
I've extended way/268443105 back to it's previous length and re-added it to the two administrative areas relation/3598544/history and relation/3598573/history , so they're now the same size and shape as they were before.
Thanks,
Andy

Hola rodolfovargas,
¿Cuál fue la fuente de los nombres personales asociados con algunos de los datos en este conjunto de cambios? Presumiblemente no era "tiles.openaerialmap.org".
Consulte osm.wiki/ES:Limitaciones_en_el_mapeo_de_informaci%C3%B3n_privada sobre qué es apropiado mapear y qué no.
Atentamente,
Andy Townsend, en representación del Grupo de Trabajo de Datos de OSM.

Hello rodolfovargas,
What was the source of the personal names associated with some of the data in this changeset? It presumably wasn't "tiles.openaerialmap.org".
Please see osm.wiki/ES:Limitaciones_en_el_mapeo_de_informaci%C3%B3n_privada about what it is appropriate to map and what it is not.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
Whereabouts did you notice the odd border?
Was it near node/20987795 , which for some reason is part of a coastline way?
Best Regards,
Andy

Near Fylingdales, not near Filey

https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/36966069 shows who changed what and when. My only edit is this one which just reverts to the previous value from Esperanto

You've said "your group kept restoring option 0) name in English", but for the avoidance of doubt, this is _not_ what this changeset did - it attempted to revert all changes in the listed changesets. 10 were successful; 20 had been edited by other mappers already. See https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/node/305640005 for an example of that.

Should be "... in the South East" of course.

Hello,
You've added way/1017685511 here. What was the source of this edit? It's certainly not visible on Bing aerial imagery.
Best Regards
Andy

@HudaHfidh - I suspect that what's happening is that you were looking in an area with no other history?

Hi Mario,
I believe that the last bit of list discussion that was kicked off by the "Esperanto" changes (which this reverted) was https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-February/thread.html#84258 . At the time, my impression was that there wasn't much consensus.
However, some of the examples here might be easier to solve than the general problem. You mention South America, and that's a good example - only two main languages, and regional forums exist with mappers from across the region in.
If people from talk-latam and OpenStreetMap Latam (and other similar places) said "we'd like the name tag for South America to be XYZ" I doubt people from elsewhere would object.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hi EmiliusAuto,
Thanks for reverting this rubbish in the middle of the sea.
If the mapper who added it does something similar in the future I'll pick it up with a DWG hat on.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Can you explain what the source of this name is please?
It'd be really helpful to use changeset comments that explain what you are adding, and what the source was.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I've nudged way/702089279 a bit to the west to match the accurate imagery here - Esri is significantly offset,
Thanks,
Andy

The issues resolved here were:
1) A gap in the Fife_Coastal_Path (10841122), caused by separating roads.
2) A gap in the road round the edge further to the northwest
3) Golf course allegedly extended to middle of road
4) Former railway was presumably a straight line; also fixed unjoined node problem there.
See comment at changeset/115757980 , subsequent osm.org/user_blocks/5589 and other comments https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=10965811 .

Hello,
In this changeset you've disconnected "The Links" from "Gibson Place", which has broken Fife Coastal Path relation/10841122 . This was exactly the same issue that was mentioned in changeset/113567023 , a comment to which you did not reply. You can see that and other comments at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=10965811 . Please do read these and understand the problems that you are causing, and reply to those comments that you have not replied to yet.
Best Regards,
Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)