Hello,
Earlier (on changeset/173023412 , which will have been emailed to you and you can see at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=23159893 ) I mentioned the discussion going on the the UK forum about this. You seem to be ignoring it - as you're still mapping here please do drop in and say hello.
Best Regards,
Andy

I'm guessing that "crossing:signals=Tufnell Park" on way/968619222 is a typo :)

Hello,
Should "spawrow" be "sparrow" on e.g. node/10592477255 ?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
What is way/1435936890 supposed to be? It has no "highway" tag but does have "footway=crossing" (but I'm not sure what that means).
Any ideas?
Best Regards,
Andy

A "highway" tag in OSM is supposed to have one of these values: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values . None of those are hashtags.
Things processing OSM data tend to do spatial searches, so it'll be obvious to them that this fuel pump is within way/118521382 ("Junction 14 Mayfield") that you added with the website https://junction14mayfield.ie/ - so they'll already know where it is.

Hello Ediats,
Someone has deleted the things that you added here because they say that they did not exist.
They did that before, after they asked you about it in changeset/163509587 , but you did not reply.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I'm guessing that the "highway=#M7" is probably supposed to be some other tag? I'm not familiar with this sort of thing so alas I've no idea what that might be...
Best Regards,
Andy

You've added "branch=York Station Loc" to the Sainsbos here but that's clearly rubbish due to data corruption in whatever fed their website at their end!

Hello,
You've moved the tags for "The Range" from the wider area to the building, but the forgets that the garden centre to the south is also part of the shop. To fix it it's probably easiest just to revert your edit.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
You've updated the brand and brand:wikidata on node/3270271462/history from "Go Outdoors Express" to "Go Outdoors". This is definitely a "Go Outdoors Express" not a "Go Outdoors". Both (as the wikidata for each makes clear) are ultimately owned by J D Sports.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Thanks for adding all this detail above Sowerby Bridge.
Just one thing to have a look at though - for "separate sidewalks" to work for routing they'll need to connect up though, because routers aren't capable of "jumping gaps". You can test routing using the buttons at the top left of osm.org. As an example osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=53.705627%2C-1.940629%3B53.705699%2C-1.940964#map=18/53.705111/-1.941761 is an attempt to route along the south of Towngate.
As an example, I've joined way/1426928386 to the road where it ends near the Rushcart.
If you want to indicate that there is a kerb there you can do so with a barrier=kerb node - see osm.wiki/Tag%3Abarrier%3Dkerb .
Best Regards,
Andy.
PS: Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

This is a Potlatch revisit of the iD editing done in 173756742 through 173759875. Everything in here was either not possible to do in iD or wasn't done because the track display in iD wasn't clear enough.

Thanks!

Hello,
NCN1 seems a bit odd at relation/15978999#map=19/52.962852/-0.021894 . It turns off the main road and then stops. There's a footpath that continues north, but that isn't tagged as allowing cycle access. Then the cycle route continues on the main road.
Further north relation/15978999#map=19/52.964399/-0.022771 there are another couple of odd gaps?
To look for gaps you can use https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=15978999 and then zoom in.
Best Regards,
Andy

Alas, talk of "fiction" here seems to have put this mapper off contributing - they made no more edits after this.
I walked along Apperley Road last night and noticed some problems remain, such as you can see at
osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&route=53.836212%2C-1.718577%3B53.835857%2C-1.7184#map=19/53.836098/-1.717636 .
I do have GPS markers of where the footpaths north and south of Apperley Road stop and start so I will (in the next month or so) update things. The other ones that haven't been tidied up further south will need to wait for local mappers as it isn't practical to do this stuff remotely.
Best Regards,
Andy

> not sure I fully understood what you meant

In my 29th and 30th changes is was still learning how to map things - "Is X better mapped as a Y or a Z": https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/26579848 . changeset/719269 was my 30th changeset, and if you look at the history of something in that https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/26579848 you can see a bit of flip-flopping between values.

@pitscheplatsch To be honest, in my 29th and 30th changesets I'm sure I was doing that too...

Hallo,
Hier ist Andy von der OSM-Datenarbeitsgruppe. Zunächst einmal vielen Dank an euch beide für euren Versuch, eine vernünftige Diskussion zu führen, anstatt einfach nur zurückzusetzen bzw. die Rücksetzung rückgängig zu machen.
Ein paar Dinge müssen jedoch klargestellt werden. Erstens ist OpenStreetMap eine Karte der aktuell existierenden Dinge. Wenn alte Gebäude abgerissen und durch neue ersetzt werden, behalten wir die alten Gebäude nicht dauerhaft in OSM, sondern löschen sie. Die alten Daten sind natürlich weiterhin zugänglich – führen Sie einfach eine Überführungssuche in den OSM-Daten durch, bevor das Gebäude gelöscht wurde.
Zweitens ist es absolut richtig, dass, wenn Eisenbahnen nicht mehr als Eisenbahnen genutzt werden und die Gleise entfernt werden, oft Infrastruktur (Brücken, Böschungen usw.) erhalten bleibt, und es ist völlig in Ordnung, diese verbleibende Infrastruktur als „railway=abandoned“ oder ähnlich zu kartieren. Wenn jedoch wirklich nichts mehr übrig ist, ist es nicht in Ordnung, diesen Tag zu verwenden. Ein Beispiel dafür, wo scheinbar nichts mehr übrig ist (zumindest auf den Bildern basierend), findet sich gleich neben diesem Änderungssatz unter osm.org/#map=19/50.766415/7.191619. Offenbar ist railway=abandoned dort nicht der richtige Tag.
Es stimmt zwar, dass es in Foren viele Diskussionen über die Kartierung ehemaliger Bahnstrecken gab, von denen keine Spuren mehr zu sehen sind. Ich denke jedoch, dass es eine klare Mehrheit gibt, die glaubt, dass „Dinge, die nicht mehr existieren und daher nicht mehr vermessen werden können, nicht in OSM gehören“. Der Vollständigkeit halber sei erwähnt, dass es auch eine bedeutende Minderheit gibt, die glaubt, dass OSM abgerissene und nicht mehr vermessbare Bahninfrastruktur enthalten sollte, und eine weitere bedeutende Minderheit ist der Meinung, dass etwas, das im Jahr 2025 keine Eisenbahnlinie ist, nicht mit dem Tag „Eisenbahn“ kartiert werden sollte.
Wer Karten nicht mehr existierender Eisenbahnstrecken mag, sollte die Stimmung besser einschätzen und sich bemühen, Beiträge in OpenHistoricalMap einzubringen, denn die Richtung ist klar. Ein weiterer klarer Vorteil von OpenHistoricalMap ist die Möglichkeit, Start- und Enddaten für alles hinzuzufügen, was in OSM gar nicht so einfach ist.
Eine Herausforderung stellt die Lizenz dar – die Lizenz von OSM stimmt nicht mit der von OHM überein, daher muss die Person, die die Daten zu OSM hinzugefügt hat, klarstellen, welche Lizenzen verwendet wurden, bevor die Daten übertragen werden können.

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.