See discussion on changeset/164484446 .

See discussion on changeset/164484446 .

See discussion on changeset/164484446 .

See discussion on changeset/164484446 .

See discussion on changeset/164484446 .

Thanks!

Thanks! Both "Diocese of Dublin" have reappeared.

Hello Balli Abokor,
We'd love to have your point of view in the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/please-update-and-include-somalia-s-newest-state-in-the-map/128229 about the admin_level=4 objects in this area.
You can login there with your OSM account.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend,
On behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello Parrot Overhead,
What Allison P says is entirely correct - things that don't have a physical storefront (or other things that don't exist in the physical world) don't belong in OSM at all.
If you have more questions and would like to discuss it with the community in general, https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 would be a great place to ask the question.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Thanks!

Thanks!

OK - that's now done in changeset/164504900 . I just added the missing relations to the stretch of untagged way in the gap, and checked that the relations were valid with JOSM's validator (see @SomeoneElse/diary/406398 for that).
Slightly confusingly here, there are two similarly-named relations here - there is relation/4189620 (An Roisín) and relation/4211826 (An Roisín Riabhach). These do have different logainm references and URLs, though.

Hello,

There's a bit of a gap in the Mercian Way cycle route (NCN 45) at relation/22602#map=18/51.072704/-1.797525 - I wondered if you knew where it went there?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I think that this change might have accidentally deleted part of some townlands - see relation/4211826 and relation/4189619 .
Do you need help fixing these?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I think that this change might have made a few relations invalid because they fell out of a rendering database last night - they crossed over each other so that they were no longer valid polygons.
I fixed them in changeset/164502548 and added a new node to retain the geometry of the nature reserve.
Cheers,
Andy

What actually is that area? As I mentioned, for example way/1373870321 ? It looks barely visible on Bing or ESRI imagery.

Hello, I think that this change might have caused a problem with a few relations. I've mentioned it on the forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/relation-breakage-on-the-coastline-northeast-of-swords/128284 .
To be clear, this absolutely isn't your fault - the problem is (a) the complicated way that relations are mapped here and (b) the way that the OSM editors don't notice that relations now have problems.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello 5155 and welcome to OSM,
What was the source of for example way/1373870321 ? It looks barely visible on Bing or ESRI imagery.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Please join the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/please-update-and-include-somalia-s-newest-state-in-the-map/128229 to discuss the relation deleted here.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend,
On behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

I think that this might have accidentally created a gap in the Norfolk AONB relation/9471593 - I've rejoined it again.