> which information was lost ?

My mistake - I didnt spot the pre-existiing "natural=bare_rock" tag.

"large" is sometimes tricky; something like relation/13325281 is inherently large, so if you're editing it you're going to end up with a "geographically large" changeset.
Also use a helpful changeset comment though!

Just checking - should way/633304589 be part of relation/358939 ? changeset/119270675 suggests "One gap left where signs missing and route unclear.", which I guess is around way/4333186 , but the "bit of an extra" to the west looks odd: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=358939

I used https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hsj as a source to trim a spur off too.

Thanks for fixing node/4401259541 , but where was the automatic edit in this changeset discussed?

Whilst the change of way/244898746/history from "Colonization Road" to "Reconciliation Road" is plausible (many similar roads have been renamed in Canada) no source was provided by PopeyePopcord for this change here. Can someone local provide it?

Apologies for the "globe-spanning" changeset. The edits reverted here were mostly in Winnipeg in Canada and Australia, with nothing much in between.
To email the DWG about it, use a subject line with "[Ticket#2022033110000019]" in it.
The mapper was repeatedly asked for source information but refused to disclose anything meaningful (see e.g. https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15467027&commented - "Local Data").

Hello, what source did you use for this change? The source hasn't changed since the _old_ name.

Hello again.
What is the source of this data?

Please be more clear. At what URL did you read this information and under what licence was it made available to you.

When you say "local knowledge" do you mean that you have personally visited the shop?

Hello,
What do you mean by "local data"?
Where did you get it from
Best Regards,
Andy

What is your source for this - local survey, something else?

Please do reply to the questions that other mappers have asked about the sources of your data.

OK - one last chance - please explain where you have linked to any "proof" above.

> to prove i vandalize data.
I believe that you're "vandalising the community" (to use your word);
I don't know the ground truth of way/965429633/history since I have never been there. I also asked you for source details (specifically "What evidence do you have that
way/965429633/history actually exists as something that someone on the ground would think was an actual highway? ") but have received none.

@SHARCRASH, I've not read all of your text above, but I've read enough to know that when it comes to the OSM community, you are "the vandal" here. as previous messages at @SHARCRASH/blocks make clear.
Please read those again, and in particular osm.org/user_blocks/5866 .

Hello misganaw1493 and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Here https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=119229656 you've tried to add a forest called "eucalyptus". If its actually a forest that contains eucalyptus trees, then you don't want to use the name "eucalyptus", you want to use the tag "genus=Eucalyptus" so that a search like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hmU will find it.
This is why someone previously commented on changeset/119097970 with some links for you to read.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello ZTR109574135 and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Please don't add canoe routes as bridleways, because they're just not, are they?
If what you're trying to add isn't actually signed on the ground (or in the water), then http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ is probably the best way to create a map showing that data. If it _is_ signed then an OSM relation with a tag "route=canoe" would be the way to go.
Best Regards,
Andy

Looks like this deleted part of the Shropshire Way?