Thanks!

Hello,
Are you sure way/1080694372 is a tunnel? It doesn't look like one (see also note/287651 ).

@Comino - ja, @JeroenHoek heeft hier gelijk. Als je het met meer mensen wilt bespreken, kun je dat doen op het forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/nl/43 .

@Comino - yes, @JeroenHoek is correct here. If you'd like to discuss it with more people you can do that in the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/nl/43 .

Thanks - I've added a note at note/4607601 so that hopefully someone local should see it.

Great - thanks!

Correct - there's no gate now. There was about a year ago, when it was closed for flood defence works. Someone spotted that the road had reopened about 3 months ago, and when I was there just before Christmas that bit of road was fully open (and the pub seemed to have had a much-needed lick of paint). I've removed the gate.

Thanks - this, and "Cork No. 5 ED" reappeared in the database.

@alain2003 - OK, thanks - let me know if you need the DWG to pick up any reverts.

Thanks - I was unaware that we'd had an explicit "no" from the data source.

I did (earlier today or yesterday) privately suggest to wait a bit longer for a reply. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
I suspect that it will be a lot of work to undo the mess now, going either forward or backward.

The options for tidying up from here are a manual fix of each relation one at a time, adding all the missing pieces (which is a lot of work), or a "big revert" of everything - both the initial import and the osm-revert attenpts. The "big revert" with tools that actually workwill only work if there has not been much other editing in the mean time, and analysing the data will be a lot of work.

Where there are many interlinked changes, osm-revert is a terrible choice for undoing changes.
Please do not use it in situations like this.

As I understand it, the licence situation is that the licence under which this data was published isn't compatible with OSM. We (the DWG) suggested asking for a waiver. I believe that an email was sent asking for a waiver, but I don't believe that it was followed up.
At best, the haste behind these reverts underestimates the time it takes bureaucracies to reply.

Somewhat related to the lack of response from Maziar Soltanpour here, there's been a block on that account: osm.org/user_blocks/17148 .

Hello,
After the change here, there,s a gap in the Offaly Way at relation/4112772#map=17/53.201926/-7.725653 . I'm guessing the path is blocked - do you know if the Offaly Way has been rerouted?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Is there a signed diversion for the gap at relation/957011 ?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
It looks like this changeset has introduced a gap in the Teesdale Way at relation/957011 . Is there really no way to get from node/797941104 to the other side of the road?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Is there really no way to get from the footpath here to the other side of the road? osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&route=52.514468%2C-2.017778%3B52.514101%2C-2.018011#map=17/52.515101/-2.019231
Best Regards,
Andy

Also was it planned to delete relation/5469858/history , which was Ballintemple townland?