Hello NTAshridgeEstatePaths,
As some people have already said, you'd deleted a number of public rights of way. The one here can be seen at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/51.8328/-0.6079/O/P (the green overlays on that map are created using local authority data - they are where they think the footpaths go).
It might be that the land manager here hasn't been ensuring that the path is maintained, or has arranged with the local authority to move it, in which case please ensure that OSM is updated with the new public rights of way.
Also as noted your edit here created a gap in the Ridgeway national trail. I'd expect that to be at least moderately well signed here so if the route shown by relation/8879#map=17/51.833152/-0.606887 is incorrect please do update it.
If you've got any questions please ask at the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86 - you can login with your OSM account.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend,
on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello "The Vyne", and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I wonder if there's been a bit of a miscommunication about "permissive access" here? Something that the general public have a legal right to access (e.g. a public footpath) would be "yes" or similar. "permissive" means that people are allowed to access it, but the land manager might remove that access at any time. "customers" means paying customers only, and "private" means only the people who own the land or people they explicitly allow (such as someone delivering the post).
If you've got any other questions, you could pop in to the UK forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86 (login with your OSM login) and ask there. I'm pretty sure that there are people there with long memories that stretch back to the join OSM / NT training that happened at Clumber many years ago!
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I think something went a bit wrong here - you accidentally changed the whole industrial area as a shop.
Please try again, and just add a point where your premises are.
Also, I'd suggest that you don't use a spammy description when you add it, as people might think it's spam and remove it :)
Best Regards, Andy
PS: Any questions, please ask at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/longueuil-request-for-help-cleaning-up-after-bad-changeset/135598 (you can login with your OSM account).

Ha - so it does (I didn't spot that). I'd just remove the "footway=sidewalk" altogether.

The ridiculously large bounding box is because the TPEP is drawn as one way: way/94759467 . Actual edit was along the road at way/70947577#map=15/54.17595/-1.81546&layers=H

The ridiculously large bounding box is because the TPEP is drawn as one way: way/94759467 . Actual edit was along the trail at relation/3878675#map=13/54.17067/-1.78562&layers=H .

Unfortunately, we can't use Google Streetview for licensing reasons (see osm.wiki/Google ), and any data added as a result of that will need to be reverted and redacted. Was that the source that you used for the change here?

That's a (hopefully short term) problem with overpass: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/overpass-turbo-link-shortening-kaput/135306 .

The query will have looked something like:
[date:"2025-09-05T00:00:00Z"];
relation(2267444);
out geom;

Hello,
What was the source of the change here? The "imagery used" on the changeset was Bing Maps Aerial; were you able to use that as a source?
Best Regards,
Andy

One thing that would be really helpful would be if you could also encourage the capture of "wheelchair:description" too (it's easy to miss things like "main entrance has two steps, but there is step-free access via the car park")

> Where else does it say which tags and keys are used?

Taginfo

> Which data consumer could you contact if a tag is used once worldwide? ;-)

The ones listed at taginfo :)

Yes, in this case usage has been largely historic and going down because people have been updating old nodes, but in the general case the wiki is designed to describe tag use not direct it.

Thanks - I've already changed it in line with what I saw, but was just wondering what the original source was? Was there perhaps a side entrance without a step that I had missed?

(for the benefit of anyone looking at edits by this Facebook mapper):
There's some "unclear sourcing" at the very least in there - for example, way/1355696177 has added "surface=paving_stones" with "source=Bing", but a glance at the Bing imagery in iD shows that the alleged pavement surface is entirely obscured by a large building, so clearly that imagery is not the source of that tag.

In order to help tidy some of this stuff up, https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2aUO is a query for nodes and ways last edited by @VLD292 in Northern England, and https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2aUP is the Southeast. There's some "unclear sourcing" at the very least in there - for example, way/1355696177 has added "surface=paving_stones" with "source=Bing", but a glance at the Bing imagery in iD shows that the alleged pavement surface is entirely obscured by a large building.
For those reasons we're reliant on people on the ground to tidy these errors up, but they will be able to look at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=21941706 and see previous problems that were reported and treat anything by VLD292 at Facebook as "in need of remapping".

1) "wiki" is not a source.
2) If you're going to fiddle with values in OSM please try and contact data consumers first.

I've removed the name from relation members (and some outliers) in a series of changes from changeset/171240691 to 171241261.
In a couple of places the added names here didn't match the route that OSM had. See changeset/171241261 and changeset/171241089 for those. Given that the route changes in places to prevent erosion, it'll need a survey to see which is correct currently.
Personally, I tend to add route markers to help reconcile them - see e.g. relation/4092633 for a work-in-progress example of that.

Hello,
Just wondered where the wheelchair tags on node/735945109/history came from?
Best Regards,
Andy

Ah - thanks!

node/13099017794 has no NCN number on it.

However, someone's attempt to remove the signage pointing northeast at node/10863834705 has been only partially successful.