Hello,
The gap's gone now, because I filled it in. Various renderers will catch up at their own speed, and I suspect that OSM's own tile servers are busy because the OSM Carto style has just changed.
Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
Somewhere through the maze around he Heads of the Valleys, there's a signed cycle route, NCN 46: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=173236 . However, as you can see from that it's not been updated since the recent construction. I wonder if you've seen any signage around relation/173236#map=19/51.784266/-3.272835 , as that's one bit that's obviously not correct any more?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
It looks like a gap had accidentally appeared in the A170 here. I presume that didn't really happen (it'd have been on the news). Presumably the footpaths here have been moved to use the crossing to the east, so the Cleveland Way is now relation/4087754#map=17/54.238685/-1.208147 and the Three Feathers Walk is now relation/6367972#map=18/54.240049/-1.210714 . The Three Feathers isn't signed, so that is as good as any. If there's any new signage for the Cleveland Way, it'd be good to add that though, like node/6899077584 a bit to the west.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Do you know how NCN1 is routed here? Currently there is a gap: relation/13512082#map=19/51.393914/0.562289
Best Regards,
Andy

OK - but from looking at OSM data how do I tell the difference between DART here and (say) https://www.centraltramway.co.uk/ ?

Hello,
How do I know if a railway=funicular is a funicular or not?
Best Regards,
Andy

@Nate Wessel the block message has a bit more info. The DWG ticket was Ticket#2023110410000321 and incorporated complaints from 6 mappers from Canada and elsewhere against a number of (suspected related) accounts.
As you can see from the block message, we did ask the user to get in touch - they never did.

Please grow up, the pair of you, and discuss in the forum.

Please grow up, the pair of you, and discuss in the forum.

Hello,
I've created a forum topic at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/geoglyphs-added-in-nazca-peru/120420 - it'd be great to see people's comments there too.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
If it was me, and I was changing the name of something like node/5360429276 from one language to another, I'd actually add the other language (here name:gd) as an explicit name tag too so that people understand which languages are involved (although not everyone does that).
I'd also discuss edits like this with the wider community - perhaps https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-scotland or talk-gb, or better https://community.openstreetmap.org/tags/c/communities/uk/86/scotland - where automatic two-way translation may be possible.
Best Regards,
Andy

I understand the frustration with the Golf software's inability to handle multipolygons, (and at people pretending that everything is a simple area instead), but that doesn't mean that _every_ fairway has to be a multipolygon, surely?

@JacekMarek you say that "the private tag is a mistake" but then "these are areas without access". I'm confused - the from the discussion above, "private" sounds correct to me, and (as I write this) it hasn't been set yet: https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/409100652

https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/409100652

This is just a revert with no comment. Can you explain why the previous version was wrong and your version is correct?
In changeset/157023417 they explained that that bit of grass that you can see around the green isn't part of the fairway.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Cześć Marcin,
Wygląda na to, że z tej rozmowy i innych wynika, że ​​„prywatne” byłoby tutaj właściwym tagowaniem.
Jeśli uważasz, że to nieprawda, sugeruję, abyś omówił to na stronie https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/pl/40.
Pozdrawiam,

Andy Townsend, w imieniu Grupy Roboczej ds. Danych OSM.

Hello Marcin,
It sounds, from this conversation and from others, that "private" would actually be the correct tagging here.
If you believe this to be incorrect I would suggest that you discuss it at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/pl/40 .
Best Regards,

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

Thanks - it reappeared in my database afterwards too.

Thanks!

Like changeset/118501311 et al, surely this is Gunnerside not Grosmont? We know there's an obviously wrong Yorkshire Water spreadsheet out there (see several previous on https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments.php?uid=508 ), so I think we all have to check any names added against the "sniff test" - does this name look right for this place, or is it perhaps the name of somewhere else?
Cheers,
Andy

Presumably when work is complete it'll also fix the gap in relation/9310601 :)