I don't know if you're crazy, but clearly you are incapable of understanding what people say to you in plain English.
In changeset/170858581 I said:
"Whenever you're thinking about making significant changes like this it's always a good idea to discuss with the relevant community.
In this case, asking about it at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/in/136 would have been a good idea."
The same applies here.
It also applies to https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/classification-of-us-route-50-in-nevada-and-whether-or-not-a-small-city-such-as-ely-is-a-trunk-destination/133312 , https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mountain-west-large-road-route-road-name-changes/132498 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/america-relation/136587 .

Thanks,
The conversations about this sort of mapping are still ongoing; it's definitely worth having a look in the forum.
Cheers,
Andy

For info this broke a couple of relations - I've fixed the ones I've found in changeset/173131453

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I've just noticed way/1436669796 - does it actually match what is actually on the ground here? It does not look like it from the imagery.
Best Regards,
Andy

Actually a few trees, and some hedges in Towthorpe

What tends to happen elsewhere is that you'd have a superroute for the "named route" (see for example relation/16327216 ) which has only relations as components - in my example relation/78028 (which is also a member of a European route) and relation/16327210 (which isn't part of anything else).
Northern Ireland has overcomplicated things a bit because there is relation/1015237 (a collection of all sorts) which contains various ones including Ulster Way (918951), which is contains a mixture of ways and relations.
It'd make it much easier if superroutes were created for the main named routes and the ways moved into them - that way the SRs for this and e.g. the Lecale Way would be much easier to process.
A challenge to do in iD, though...

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