Just wondered - what is the difference between relation/1015887 and relation/15481627 ?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/relation/15543659 is both "network=nwn" and "network:type=lwn". It looks pretty "local" to me; is there anything that I am missing?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
way/1394995446/history seems to be tagged as a "community_centre=community_hall" which seems odd?
Regards,
Andy

Well if there's a kerb on way/1435651892 that's worth mapping.
I've connected the relation up relation/357215#map=19/53.356102/-1.386084 - if someone was cycling northe or south along that I'm guessing that they'd have to get off the bike, push it across the road, and then get on at the other side?

Just for info - this edit is being discussed in the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/separate-sidewalks-or-not-near-ealing/132613/183 - you might want to pop in and say hi!

Thanks!

Hello,
Just wondered - do you know what the difference is between relation/123318 and relation/19284290 ? They both look like superroutes of NCN5, but with slightly different constituents?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Bonjour @camillMa,

La configuration de ces relations dans OpenStreetMap (à la fois « EV » et, dans une moindre mesure, « AV ») est un peu confuse. N'hésitez pas à nous contacter si vous avez des questions. En particulier, il est difficile de voir quelle relation vous modifiez avec l'éditeur « iD » du navigateur, et il est facile de se tromper, car le numéro de relation n'est presque jamais affiché.

Cordialement,

Andy

I've changed the tags on these AV relations, so that relation/2820043 is now AV and so is the AV superroute containing both parts, relation/2820053 .
The EV12 superroute in the UK is entirely separate - see relation/9476239 . That goes via a bunch of national NCN routes as well as some dedicated EV12 ones.

Hello nixon21,
You can see that this object has flip-flopped between an informal trail and not existing at all over several iterations: way/1433088186/history .
This approach really does not help anyone. In particular, deleting something that DOES exist but shouldn't be used for reasons of access rights / hazard / whatever will have exactly the opposite effect to the intended one - someone is likely to re-add it without tags such as "informal" etc.
Instead, what I would suggest is adding it as either a highway=path (or disused:highway=path, as appropriate) and then making sure that other tags are also correct - things like informal, access tags, hazard trail_visibility, etc.
I would also echo the suggestion above to discuss specific cases in the forum.
An example of one I've mapped myself that was closed for erosion control is way/678188487/history ; another example is way/1086252957 (note the other tags on there that summarise the on-the-ground situation so that no-one is misled).
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
It looks like this might have introduced a gap in the causeway coast way:
relation/1085994#map=19/55.237231/-6.428812
Best Regards,
Andy

It'd need a survey to check, but do you think that node/12520085221/history should be tagged as anything? spillway? outlet? The imagery is unclear.

Hello,
The Wash already exists as relation/9818241 - is there any difference between that and way/1296077965 here?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks - I've undeleted it and aligned it with imagery in changeset/172574575 .

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/automated-edit-of-waterway-spillway-and-man-made-spillway/136178

I don't remember mapping this one, but suspect that "usage=spillway" here is incorrect - it's a fish ladder.
Correct here would have been to do what you did at way/374759289#map=20/54.0337748/-1.2382691&layers=H and remove "usage" and leave "water=fish_pass" (rare https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2cAG , but descriptive).

Hello,
You've changed the tags on way/949631071/history , the spillway adjacent to this hydro power station in Derby from "waterway=spillway" to "layer=-1;tunnel=culvert;usage=spillway;waterway=drain". I don't recall this has being underground, and wikipedia's picture from the opposite back suggests not either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbridge_Weir_Hydro#/media/File:Longbridge_weir_Hydroelectric_Plant_geograph-3480856-by-Ian-Calderwood.jpg .
I suspect you'll need to either revert your changes wholesale or check each of the 300 items you edited (checking with the local community or surveying) to make sure that your edits are correct.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
This looks like a mechanical edit, and if so, should have followed osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct . I don't remember seeing any discussion that said that you were going to do this. This is relevant because there are data consumers of this tag https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/waterway=spillway#projects - each of those projects has a contact mechanism (in many cases you can just raise a github issue to say what you are planning).
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
It looks like this edit or an earlier one introduced a gap in the Saxon Shore Way - https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2cAp shows how it was a couple of days ago.
Using the previous OSM data and the LA rights-of-way data https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#17/51.27479/1.36797/H/P I've filled in the gap, and also one near the road.
relation/8864#map=16/51.27421/1.36877
Best Regards,
Andy