Hello,
Thanks for updating this here. It looks like NCN12 also routes over that new bit of cycleway, so I've added that too.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello DaanLT,
I'm sure you could do a _bit_ better than "additions, corrections" every single time :)
Best Regards,
Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)

Hello,
You've deleted way/1317612878/history here, but if it's "unsafe and closed to public use" it'd be better to keep the geometry in OSM and change the tag from "highway" to something like "disused:highway" (see osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay ). If you just delete it, there is a risk that someone will just re-add it ("I know there is a bridge here - I was there a couple of years ago"). If you leave it there but make it clear that it is not currently a highway=footway, it is less likely to be re-edited.
Best Regards,
Andy

If there's a difference of opinion here, perhaps mention it at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 and see what other people have to say?
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

See https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/6062#issuecomment-2564842136 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-this-the-same-person/123461 .

No worries - I can do it. I've just changed the Hop Leaf in Reading (which was definitely bar billiards).

Yes - it was very closed a year ago, but sounds like it's open again now.

osm.org/user_blocks/17010

@mateusz - will SC display a 0-hour block to the user?

Thanks!

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
It was me that forgot to clarify that that foot and bicycle access was permitted, back in 2022 - see https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/32493721 . I've undone the duplicate cycle path here, since there isn't one, but clarified the access in changeset/160542044 .
Hopefully that's all OK now?
Best Regards,
Andy
PS: Any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask...

Thanks for trying to fix this - unfortunately it still left a duplicate cycleway in place that does not exist. I've reverted both this and the changeset that caused the initial issue, changeset/159271399 .
Chan you check that all now looks OK at your end?

A quick web search suggests that wholesale wicker baskets seems to be their thing, so fill your boots based on that.

Great, thanks!

Hello,
The access tag on node/355992929/history
that was added here was "privateclientelism". Someone's changed that to "customers;private" (which isn't particularly meaningful). What was the access tag supposed to be here - I'm guessing that "privateclientelism" was just a typo?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

I'm sure it'll be fixed soon. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/there-seems-to-be-a-problem-with-authorisation-currently/123139/9 .

I'd suggest that you at least ask about a waiver before reverting everything!
Perhaps ask in the forum c.osm.org ?

I think that we'd need to get a waiver, unless one has already been obtained.

On
https://data.humdata.org/dataset/cod-ab-mar
it says "License Creative Commons Attribution for Intergovernmental Organisations". That links to the licences page where it says "Creative Commons Attribution for Intergovernmental Organisations (CC BY-IGO)". That's not a licence that I've heard of before, but it does look similar to a normal "attribution" licence which may be problematic - see osm.wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility for other examples. You have a couple of options:

1) Ask for a waiver from whoever provided the data
2) Ask on the forum c.osm.org to see if anyone has asked for a waiver
3) Ask the LWG whether this licence is actually compatible.

That page says "You can share your data on HDX under one of the following Creative Commons licenses. ".

Where is the page that says that the data that you are using from there is ODBL?

Also, what is the source? Someone must have uploaded it to this site - where from?

That's just a list.

Under what licence(s) is the data from data.humdata.org that you actually used made available?