Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. First things first, thanks to both of you for trying to have a sensible discussion here rather than than just reverting / unreverting.
However, a couple of things need to be made clear. The first is that OpenStreetMap is a map of things that currently exist. As old buildings are demolished and replaced with new ones, we don't keep the old buildings in OSM in perpetuity, we delete them. The old data is still accessible of course - just do an overpass search on OSM data before the building was deleted.
Secondly, it's absolutely true that when railways stop being used as railways and the tracks are removed, some infrastructure often remains (bridges, embankments, etc.), and it's perfectly OK to map that remaining infrastructure as "railway=abandoned" or similar. However, when there is really nothing left, it isn't OK to use that tag. An example of where there appears to be nothing left (at least based on imagery) is just down the road from this changeset at osm.org/#map=19/50.766415/7.191619 . It looks like railway=abandoned is not the right tag to use there.
It's correct to say that there have been a lot of forum discussions about mapping former railway lines where no trace exists on the ground. However I think that there IS a clear majority that believes that "things that no longer exist and hence cannot be surveyed do not belong in OSM". For completeness there's also a significant minority that believes that OSM should contain razed and unsurveyable railway infrastructure, and another significant minority that believes that something that is not in 2025 a railway should not be mapped with a "railway" tag.
People who like maps of no-longer-existing railways really do need to "read the room" a bit better and do what they can to get their contributions into OpenHistoricalMap, because it's pretty clear which way this is all going. Another clear advantage of OpenHistoricalMap is the ability to add start and end dates for everything, something that isn't at all easy to do in OSM.
A challenge is the licence - OSM's licence doesn't match OHM's so the person who added the data to OSM needs to make clear what licences was used before it can be transferred.

@pitscheplatsch what does "Revert of changeset/154734941" mean? Both are changesets in iD by the same user.

Hello,
See changeset/173539410
Best Regards,
Andy

Diskuterades något av följande med den bredare svenska gemenskapen:
1) Det ursprungliga tillägget av en ny kartläggare som deras första changeset för 6 dagar sedan changeset/173402413
2) Borttagningen här
3) Återställningen av borttagningen changeset/173577171 .
ALLA skulle ha gynnats av en bredare diskussion i gemenskapen.

Were any of the following discussed with the wider Swedish community:
1) The original addition by a new mapper as their first changeset 6 days ago changeset/173402413
2) The deletion here
3) The revert of the deletion changeset/173577171 .
ALL would have benefited from wider community discussion.

Thanks!

I'm guessing that "Pudey" in some of these names should perhaps be "Pudsey"?

(for info see also changeset/172948051 , where someone from Sustrans was tidying these up).

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

The "other" NCN5 superroute is relation/123318 , and by the version number, that looks like the older one. I'll ask the person who created the duplicate if they're in the middle of tidying it up.

Doing the same for "National Cycle Network Route 5" we get to relation/19284284 (you'll notice when you click something the URL bar changes). You can also see on that "browse" page that it says "Part of 1 relation Relation 5 (19284290) (as main)".
That's the "superroute" (a "relation of relations", created because individual relation size is limited).
That has 10 members:
" Relation 5 (359098) as main
Relation 5 (19284288) as main
Relation 5 (19284285) as main
Relation National Cycle Network Route 5 (19284284) as main
Relation 5 (19284287) as alternative
Relation 5 (19284286) as alternative
relation/9466687 as connection
relation/9466685 as connection
relation/9466688 as connection
relation/9466686 as connection"

So that's 4 main parts, two "alternatives" and 4 connections. You can click on each of those on that page to see what they are.

I have to say that relation/17077005 looks like rubbish, because (a) it's proposed and does not exist yet, (b) it's a "collection" rather than an actual route and (c) it's added by mrpacmanmap, who is, ... not the most reliable contributor. So I think we can draw a veil over that one.

If you search taginfo for a name of anything in OSM you'll be able to find it, so from https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Starley+Regional+Cycle+Network#values you can click through to https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/description=Starley%20(TfWM)%20Regional%20Cycle%20Network%20(Proposed%20route) and from there there is an overpass turbo link to https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2dMV and if you click on that you get to relation/17077005#map=11/52.5080/-1.8073 . As clear as mud :)

Veuillez utiliser de meilleurs commentaires sur les ensembles de modifications. « À corriger » ne sert à rien.
Cordialement,
Andy Townsend, au nom du groupe de travail sur les données d'OSM

Please use better changeset comments. "À corriger " helps no-one.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

The bus bay isn't all the way up the street though? Where did you see the bus bay?

I've no idea what "Starley Network" is - can you link to it?
What is the link to the NCN5 that you can see?
In my comment above I've linked to two superroute relations that both claim to be NCN5, in this changeset you've modified both of those and a few routes that are constituents of them. I'm confused not because this is wrong but because I don't understand what they are :)

Pas de problème, je pense avoir corrigé les problèmes plus tôt

No problem - I think I've corrected the problems earlier

I'd definitely suggest adding "designation=core_path" where relevant, as per https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/designation=core_path .