Thanks - done in changeset/163565825

For info - I removed a couple of extra bits from relation/6153872 so that it's now just one ring.

Hello,
Was way/371619998 removed from relation/5518440 deliberately?
Previously that relation was https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/20hZ , but now it's just two sides of a triangle.
Best Regards,
Andy

Oops - I think that the original A148 he was part of the "outer" of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and there's now a gap in it: relation/9471593#map=14/52.78094/0.45851 .
Are you OK to add that back or would you like me to?

Also ts1708b

Hello,
It is clear (see https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/39972557 ) that you disagree with other mappers about road classifications here. Can you explain where you have discussed it with them and persuaded them that your point of view is correct?
Best Regards,
Andy

@Yog%20Sot I'm only involved because the DWG received complaints about the way that you rode roughshod over other mappers and just reverted their work, despite it largely following community agreed guidelines.
We have given you lots of opportunity to try and find a consensus, and at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-separated-footways-or-cycleways-along-central-street-as-one-tagged-line-versus-mutiple-lines/126766/73 people have been very indulging of you and have tried to help you.
OpenStreetMap is a shared community project - to make progress you need to persuade people of your point of view, not keep repeating that they are all wrong.
You are really not helping us to help you.

Thanks - I was worried that my rendering of "a building in the middle of the North Sea" was wrong!

A quick question - are things like way/635829122 above the sea level or below it? I'm guessing the latter?

DO NOT DO ANY MORE REVERTS.
You will be blocked from the OSM API if you do.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of the OSM Data Working Group.

@Yog Sot, based on the comments above, can you explain why this was "invalid" and why you reverted it?

Cześć, Andy z Data Working Group.
Po pierwsze, zasugerowałbym, aby wszyscy przenieśli tę dyskusję na forum (konkretny temat dotyczący tej edycji). Widzę, że są już tam ogólne dyskusje, takie jak https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/zniszczenie-mojej-pracy-nad-infrastruktura-rowerowa/125418 .
Po drugie, zasugerowałbym, aby ludzie zamieszczali zdjęcia faktycznej infrastruktury, aby zilustrować swój punkt widzenia.
Mapowanie ścieżek rowerowych i chodników nie jest kwestią „czarno-białą” — są chwile, kiedy ma sens mapowanie ich jako części infrastruktury drogowej, a są chwile, kiedy ma sens, aby były oddzielone od drogi (i faktycznie oddzielone od siebie). Tylko patrząc na aktualne zdjęcia, ludzie będą mogli zobaczyć, co tam jest.
Pozdrawiam,
Andy Townsend, w imieniu Data Working Group OSM.

Hello, Andy from the Data Working Group here.
Firstly, I'd suggest that everyone takes this this discussion to the forum (a specific topic about this edit). I can see that there are already general discussions there such as https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/zniszczenie-mojej-pracy-nad-infrastruktura-rowerowa/125418 .
Secondly, I'd suggest that people post pictures of the actual infrastructure to illustrate their point of view.
Mapping cycleways and footways isn't a "black and white" issue - there are times when it makes complete sense to map it as part of the road infrastructure, and times when it makes sense for them to be separate from the road (and indeed separate from each other). Only by looking at up to date pictures will people be able to see what is there.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello - I think that the new bit way/1363939186 needs adding to a couple of relations - relation/1695404#map=19/52.348209/-1.403282 shows the gap in one of them.
Best Regards,
Andy

Given that this sort of thing is of interest to lots of other people, I'd suggest a forum discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/ would be a really good idea. In French would be fine - other people can just hit the "translate" button.

Oops, looks like this got added in the middle of the Atlantic and someone had to delete it. Maybe "osmtree" should check that it has sensible lat and long before adding?

Hello again jajanja3 ,

Following on from changeset/161257413 , please do use changeset comments that actually explain what you have changed. "Navigation Detail" on its own does not really help anyone.

Thanks. Would it be possible to ensure that changesets have some reference to the actual maproulette task? Maproulette tasks tend to be of variable quality, and it's really useful to know which changesets resulted from which one.

Can you try replying to https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-bot-like-comments-on-changesets/126587/7 in the forum?

I've added two nodes, both of which have pictures:

node/12626336200 is an "Unsuitable for Motors" sign pointing south. There's a picture of the sign.

node/12626377501 is a place where there is _no_ sign on the track pointing east. There's a picture showing that there is no sign.

Does that answer your question?