There's a bug in iD that can encourage you to add ways to superrelations (here relation/5487294) rather than the local relation (here relation/5487293).
The other issue from changeset/172178406 is still a problem of course - clearly osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.512009%2C-3.237576%3B51.512273%2C-3.237295#map=19/51.512475/-3.236980 is not a valid set of walking directions.
Best Regards,
Andy

It looks like one of the node drags here made a dozen or so relations invalid, including "10709165 | Monkstown Parish". I've dragged that back in changeset/172414229 so that the relation is now relation/10709165#map=19/53.258073/-6.197441 , as opposed to self-intersecting (which made it an invalid polygon). This also affected "10709158 | Kilternan Parish", "13062149 | Glencullen ED 1901", "13061513 | Ballybrack ED 1901", "12491333 | Ballybrack ED", "12430312 | Glencullen ED", "4608457 | Tully", "2236209 | Kilgobbin" and possibly some others.
You can use Josm's relation validator to check relations (see @SomeoneElse/diary/406398 ) even if you don't edit relations in Josm.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I think that something has gone a bit wrong here. There seems to be no way to get from one side of Ty Mawr Road to the other.
Imagine you're following the Cambrian Way long distance path relation/11661295#map=20/51.5121149/-3.2373653 - you'll see a gap.
Using a router to try and cross that gap you're directed like this:
osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.512009%2C-3.237576%3B51.512273%2C-3.237295#map=18/51.511749/-3.237306
I'm sure that this is not really how it is - in practice the path from the Southwest and also the one northwest
osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.512324%2C-3.2374196%3B51.5122606%2C-3.2373109#map=19/51.512675/-3.236990
actually do join Ty Mawr Road.
Best Regards,
Andy
PS: Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

Are you seriously suggesting that the patch of grass way/587923070/history was named after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adem_Jashari ? Do you have any evidence for that?

您好，
四月的時候，way/733274217/history#map=17/21.983757/108.495998 是一座大型發電廠 https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2bZb。您把它改成了房子，然後又把它刪除了。
您能解釋一下發生了什麼事嗎？
此致敬禮，
安迪

Hello,
Back in April way/733274217/history#map=17/21.983757/108.495998 was a large power station https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2bZb . You changed it into a house and then deleted it.
Can you explain what has happened here?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Hello,
Thanks for extending this here. I think that some bits might need a bit of trimming though - http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=18268797 shows a few unjoined pieces.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hola,
No es necesario añadir "esta pequeña roca" como "exterior" de la frontera con España, ya que se encuentra dentro de las aguas territoriales españolas. Vea la línea grande aquí:
relation/1311341#map=11/36.6318/-3.4734
Atentamente,
Andy

Hello,
You don't need to add "this small rock as an "outer" of the Spain boundary because it is well within Spanish territorial waters - see the big line here:
relation/1311341#map=11/36.6318/-3.4734
Best Regards,
Andy

@NTAshridgeEstatePaths Please do reply to these changeset comments. When I submit this comment you will get sent an email you will get sent a link to this changeset. Click through that and you can comment yourself (write a comment in the box and click "comment").
In particular, the question that @Mikey%20Co asked above has not yet been answered.
You can see other questions at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=18480814 , and of course they will have been mailed to you.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
You've deleted paths such as https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2bEN here. It is still somewhat visible in imagery, so if you want to prevent anyone re-adding it I strongly recommend that you ensure that it remains in OSM either with access tags saying "this is a private path" or lifecycle tags saying "this was a path but is no longer". Failing to do either risks someone adding it back to OSM without any access tags at all.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
You've deleted way/1215964867 (see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2bEM ) here. Although it's in the trees, it is still somewhat visible in imagery, so if you want to prevent anyone re-adding it I strongly recommend that you ensure that it remains in OSM either with access tags saying "this is a private path" or lifecycle tags saying "this was a path but is no longer". Failing to do either risks someone adding it back to OSM without any access tags at all.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
You'd deleted the tracks / footpaths here and I've restored them, because your deletion may cause someone to re-add it from imagery (where it is clearly visible), and if they do that they will not add access tags.
I have added foot=private to each since presumably that is what you were actually trying to record.

Hello,
You'd deleted the private track here (which was tagged as a private track). I've restored the private track because your deletion may cause someone to re-add it from imagery (where it is clearly visible), and if they do that they will not add access tags.

Like changeset/171412889 this also deleted a public right of way.
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#17/51.77428/-0.53272/H/P shows that.
If it genuinely has been rerouted or closed by the local authority please do ensure that the new route is added and tagged correctly.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

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.