Hello,
I've mp idea whether it was your edit here, but relation/5487096 now has some gaps in it - see http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=5487096 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Not sure how it happened but there's now a bit of a gap at relation/2894908#map=19/51.699189/-3.628884 ?

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
You've extended way/46343328 here up towards the north of Callendar. Previously, e.g. at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gqC , the national park boundary followed the river. Now there's a duplicate line that you can see at relation/1957067#map=12/56.2578/-4.1927 . I'm guessing that your route west of Cambusmore Quarry is correct, but I've no idea of north of there.
When you've finished editing you can check it with the JOSM validator (see @SomeoneElse/diary/406398 for help with that).
Best Regards,
Andy
PS Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask!

I think that "location=rii" might be a typo?
See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gpC .
Cheers,
Andy

Thanks!

I've not been in for years but news reports suggest it was still there in at least 2023.

Any reason why you've gone with amenity rather than man_made for these? Previously there were 70 uniquely man_made https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2g2d and 45 uniquely amenity https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2g2c , and 16 both https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2g2f . There are now 234 amenity, but the wiki page is against man_made osm.wiki/Tag%3Aman_made%3Dmounting_block
I don't mind either way (I've always shown both) but some people do get sniffy about creating more things under amenity :)

Thanks for fixing this. You've no idea if there's a diversion for the New River Path signposted, have you?
Just asking on the off chance...
Cheers,
Andy

Re note/161072 , I'm not sure what the original issue was. 10 years ago it was like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2fP3 . Since then way/763513258 as been added. According to local authority PRoW data it is a public footpath: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/52.6415/-0.9379/H/P , but so are many others.

OK, I've changed that back in changeset/174879700 . The previous conversation was in
changeset/174120016 - the author of that is the person to talk to about where it really goes!

Thanks!

Thanks - this matches my recollection.
A remaining problem here (from well before your edit) is that way/195774187 seems to go across a wall and back, but that's entirely unrelated.

> would this be considered sufficient?

Thanks - I now have one more object to keep an eye on, and something to point at when it changes.

> @FILszew/history is one just appeared BTW

Again, the same questions - what have they changed that does not match the Polish community's majority view of what road classes should be in Poland, and why?

Above I said "saying explicitly what is wrong with the way each user tagged them, why it was wrong, and if relevant where the Polish community decided that that tagging was wrong".

Unfortunately, "more unexplained undiscussed nonsense trunk category changes" et al does not answer that.

You have linked to exactly one OSM object above - https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/41189769 - and I presume you believe that "secondary" is correct there? Can you explain _why_ you believe that the majority of the Polish community think that and link to some documentation that I can read in the forum, the wiki or elsewhere?

Did that information take the form of an image or a site plan? If so, what was the licence associated with that? If not, what form did it take?

Please use meaningful changeset comments. "fix" doesn't really help anyone to understand what you were doing.
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments should give you some ideas.

Hello,
What made you think that way/304255640/history was an unclassified road?

Please tell us what source you used, otherwise we will have to revert this.

Hello,

For info I have asked these accounts to contact us:

osm.org/user_blocks/18959
osm.org/user_blocks/18960
osm.org/user_blocks/18961

Can you please give us an examples of problems with any of these users that you may be familiar with? It would help to refer to specific OSM objects (perhaps from the list in this changeset) and saying explicitly what is wrong with the way each user tagged them, why it was wrong, and if relevant where the Polish community decided that that tagging was wrong. Currently we have enough information to say "please contact us" but not any information about what they have done wrong.

Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!