Thanks - I'd suggest that if you know where there's signage on the "proposed" relation it's worth you moving it to the other one.

Thanks!

Hello,
I'm guessing that "community_centre=club_home" on node/7197451069 might be a typo, but what for?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,

> everything marked as being accessible by foot seems to be showing up looking like a regular footpath on apps

On which apps are you seeing problematical data displayed?

It'd be great to have more details so that we can investigate.

> I heard back from one app saying that they didn't believe it was their responsibility to fix it themselves

.. especially details of that app! At the very least they need to educate their helpdesk.

Best Regards,
Andy

Hello James, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. This change has been flagged to us because it has a lot of deletions in it.
After looking at it, I'm worried that some of the changes here will have the opposite effect to the one that you desire.
An example, way/1307126023/history was mapped before as sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking . Just deleting it might mean that someone might add it back without those tags, meaning that it could show up in hiking apps designed for regular tourists, misleading them into attempting something that they should not.
If it genuinely doesn't exist as any sort of path (but might be visible on old out of copyright maps or imagery) other tags would be better - perhaps "disused:highway". If it does exist but is beyond anything normally tagged in OSM as "path", then again some other tag (perhaps "scramble"?) might be better.
I'd also suggest discussing it with the wider community in the forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/tags/c/communities/uk/86/scotland - you can login there with your regular OSM account.
Best Regards,
Andy

Includes one bike route guidepost in York

I wonder if that got saved? I still see both spurs at relation/5422375#map=16/50.62383/-4.20835 ?

@Constrado - I think you need to apologise to to the Polish community for the way that you've been behaving.
I would suggest that you need to do that before doing anything else.

Have you discussed this edit with the Polish community? The elevation of the road class here isn't in line with my recollection of previous discussions.

Hello,
Currently there is relation/2941541 (not proposed) and relation/5868477 (proposed) - if some of the bits around Porthcawl are now signed should they be moved to the other relation?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Just wondered - is the extra spur northeast of Chillaton deliberate?
https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=5422375
Best Regards,
Andy

Is this definitely operational again?
It was previously edited in OSM to say that it wasn't; if it is, where are the new readings shown?

Odd though it sounds, we can't actually use wikipedia as a source for OSM as the licence is incompatible.
However, I'm sure that there are licence compatible sources (look at whatevev wikipedia used, for example) and also our of copyright sources (since I doubt that it has changed recently).

way/374455218#map=16/51.70150/-1.98438 still has horse=private and bicycle=private, which seems unlikely given that it is designated as a public bridleway?

(for the benefit of anyone stumbling across this) the access=private issue was addressed 5 years ago in changeset/78972463

Hello,
(also about way/374455218/history ). The changeset comment says "Correcting access / type where no ROW exists or where it is incorrect. Footpath only / driveways etc " which doesn't match the situation here.
It's tagged in OSM as a designated public bridleway (see https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#17/51.70149/-1.98439/H ) and the local authority also things it is one, too (see https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#17/51.70149/-1.98439/H/P ), Something that is designated as a public bridleway would be expected to be horse=yes unless it is closed for some reason (perhaps safety, after a landslip). Anything designated as a public bridleway is also bicycle=yes in terms of legal access tags, although it may not be suitable for regular cycling (and you can use other tags for that).
There's a discussion going on at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-access-no-tagging-of-uk-public-rights-of-way/132798 - perhaps pop in there and say hello? You can login to that site with your OSM ID.
Best Regards,
Andy

> I mistakenly introduced errors in this edit

Not really - if there is a gap in the trail (or we can't see where it goes) then there should be a gap in OSM, and if the WVW website isn't directly usable then for now we can only go with what is signed (or not) on the ground (specifically here in Symond's Yat East itself).
My recollection of the WVW (from further west) is that signage is very variable.
The email of the https://www.wyevalleywalk.org/ site suggests that it's part of the AONB, so the route might be available from them as OGL unencumbered by the OS mapping they've overlaid it on on their site.
Anyone feeling keen could ask (although if it was me, I'd probably think that was too much like hard work and stick to mapping the signposts!)

Hello,
It looks like this change has removed the section round the north of Huntsham Hill from the Wye Valley Walk: relation/61495#map=15/51.84537/-2.63507 . It was there a few days ago: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/280C .
Does it need to be added back?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Just wondered whether there should be a gap in the non-NCN Mercian Way at relation/12015034#map=20/51.7439262/-2.2222510 ? (you can see two orange bits of the relation with a gap here).
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
way/1414082973 was newly added here, and you've added it to relation/19341660 (the "Ancient Trees Walk"), but I've also added it to the Way of Roses and 688 cycle routes as there was an obvious gap in those too.
Best Regards,
Andy