Thanks - I'll let you fix it since you know what should be what. There's no great urgency...

Hello,
I just wondered whether places like the bridge at relation/8595349#map=19/50.991481/-2.808351 were supposed to be still part of that cycle relation? Also see http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=8595349 .
Best Regards,
Andy

It's not sarcasm. Both signs are clearly unofficial. One an a4 piece of paper temporarily attached to a wall for the photo, the other a graffito sprayed on it. If anything, "stalin" is likely to be the more permanent of the two

> Do you think there are issues with edits in this changeset?

Hopefully not, but I've genuinely no idea. If there are any issues I'm sure they'll become clear when the community has had chance to review the import plan and the data already uploaded, licence details, etc.

Re the osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Yerevan_Tree_Map#Import_plan page, you created that AFTER this import:

osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Organised_Editing/Activities/Yerevan_Tree_Map&action=history

> Do we still need a complex import plan described for this, with revert plan etc?

Yes, if you want the data you have already imported to stay in OSM rather than be reverted.

You were told what you need to do via the comments to @YerevanTreeMap/diary/405949 . To ignore those comments shows disrespect to the rest of the OSM community.

Can you please point to where you have gone through osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines (as mentioned at @YerevanTreeMap/diary/405949#comment58642 )?

How come the stall at the back isn't labelled "Stalin" then?

Salve,
OpenStreetMap è una mappa di cose reali nel mondo reale. Non aggiungere nomi inventati.
Cordiali saluti,
Andy Townsend, a nome del Data Working Group di OSM

Hello,
OpenStreetMap is a map of real things in the real world. Don't add made-up names.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

No problem. I've filled in the gaps, and the two townlands seem valid as polygons again.
One thought though - the eastern bit of way/1350089485 looks a bit like a dirt farm track (I presume a private one). Would it be correct to add those tags?
The western bit just looks like a connection across the field on the Bing and ESRI imagery - I'm guessing in the Midlands in January it might be a bit muddy right now :)

Hello,

> Might not be a 100% accurate.

Please don't do this. Mapping recent events based on news reporting is hugely problematic. OSM often sees this in war zones, where something has happened but the initial reports about what may not be 100% correct. I suspect that the situation here is similar.
Any OSMers most familiar with the area won't be able to comment right now on what you have done because they will be too busy keeping themselves and their families safe.
Best Regards,
Andy

See my comments at changeset/160174336 . No reply there, so I re-added it here.

I've re-added the deleted cycle path in changeset/161201098 . If that's wrong, please do let me know.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
It looks like this edit might have introduced a gap in the "Sandstone Trail" relation relation/50726#map=18/53.074166/-2.745740 . Previously that didn't have a gap: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1WV5 .
Do you think you would be able to add the necessary ways back into the relation or would you like someone to help with this?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Just so you know, I think that something in this changeset might have deleted something that was the boundary of a couple of townlands - relation/4161139 and relation/4161138 . The previous situation of one of them can be seen at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1WUV .
Would you like to fix this or would you like some help with that?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
After this edit there is a bit of a gap in the Saxon Shore Way relation/8864#map=19/51.394665/0.563562 .
Does it follow the diagonal path or the footpath that cuts the corner?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello again mapeing,
I suspect that the information that you have added here doesn't actually reflect reality. For example, if you wanted to cross the road here, I'm sure that you would not need to follow this route: osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.394888%2C0.499913%3B51.394831%2C0.500114#map=19/51.394646/0.499720
There's been plenty of discussion about whether mapping sidewalks separately adds any value (I suspect it does in some cases, but not in others - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/undiscussed-mass-deletion-of-separate-sidewalks/117491/7 ).
What was the reason that you added them here, and are you really prevented from just walking across Kingswear Gardens?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks - "Whitechurch Parish" et al have popped back into the database this morning.

Thanks!