Hello,
You are arguing about whether https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/15921137 should be secondary or tertiary. Please explain why you think it should be secondary (or tertiary), and (importantly) why you think that your view has the backing of the community in Poland. Please link to the relevant section of the Polish forum or wiki to support your case.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,
You are arguing about whether https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/15921137 should be secondary or tertiary. Please explain why you think it should be secondary (or tertiary), and (importantly) why you think that your view has the backing of the community in Poland. Please link to the relevant section of the Polish forum or wiki to support your case.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Also a bit of the River Foss up to Towthorpe

Great - thanks!

Pozdravljeni,
Andy iz delovne skupine za podatke. Ste preverili klasifikacijo s ponastavitvijo spletne skupnosti OSM? Prej smo prejeli pritožbe glede klasifikacije te ceste, zato predlagamo, da o tem razpravljamo na forumu ali podobnem forumu. Zgodovino enega dela ceste si lahko ogledate na https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/498784752.
Različne skupnosti OSM imajo različna pravila za to, "kaj naj bi bilo primarno" itd. Včasih temelji na uradni kategoriji, včasih na mnenju kartografov, včasih pa je to mešanica.
Lep pozdrav,
Andy

Hello,
Andy from the Data Working Group here. Have you checked the classification with the reset of the Slovenian OSM community? We've had complaints before about the classification of this road should be, and would therefore suggest to discuss it in the forum or simular. You can see the past history of one part of the road at https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/498784752 .
Different OSM communities have different rules for "what should be primary" etc. Sometimes it's absolutely based on an official category, sometimes is based on mappers' ceonsensus, and sometimes it's a mixture.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I wonder if you could help with some problems in the area of https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#23/52.34271/-1.70728 ? In OSM that is osm.org/#map=23/52.34271968/-1.70726271&layers=S , but none of the renderers on the OSM site show enough detail to fix it.
The first questions is: Is there a parallel footpath and road at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#21/52.34269/-1.70721 ? I'm guessing, based on what part of the imagery is free of trees, that there isn't. Back in 2019 there wasn't a parallel footpath: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hOG ; it was added around 2022: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hOH and 2023: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hOJ .
My guess is that the parallel foopath will need to be deleted and everything joined up.
The second question is that I suspect that the public foootpath (red dots at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#24/52.34303/-1.70720/H/P ) does not stop just short of the road. It's likely the on-the ground paths don't exactly match where the local authority think the public footpaths go (green on https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#24/52.34303/-1.70720/H/P ) but I suspect that it crosses the road.
The third is that I suspect that three paths don't join at the gate at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#25/52.34271/-1.70727/H and there isn't a path from the northeast that doesn't join but is instead attached to the fence, leaving a gap in the Heart of England Way (see relation/75260#map=23/52.34270870/-1.70727282&layers=S ).
By the way, this problem seems to have existed for a few years, long before your recent edits in the area. It probably needs someone with local knowledge to answer (hence me asking you!) but you won't be able to fix it in Vespucci - the screen is just too small.
Best Regards,
Andy

Just wondered - this memorial: node/13254558101 isn't the same as node/603833919 by any chance is it?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hola,
Has borrado relation/9520125/history. ¿Fue intencional?
Atentamente,
Andy

Hello,
You've deleted relation/9520125/history here - was that deliberate?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Just for info, you can check for gaps in relations by a site such as e.g. http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=19918287 and http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=19918287 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Currently, the NCN1 here is relation/254838#map=11/57.6573/-3.2677 , and the EV1 is relation/2763769#map=12/57.6646/-3.2667 . Should more of the ways that are in NCN1 also be in EV1? Currently many to the south aren't, and to the north places like relation/2763769#map=20/57.6635565/-3.2300663 perhaps should not be?
Best Regards,
Andy

No reply, so I filled in the gap again in changeset/176194664 .

Hello,
There's still a bit of a gap in section 2 of the London LOOP: relation/3308902#map=15/51.40058/0.08141 . Previously it ran on this alighnment: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hBx .
Best Regards,
Andy

Now down to 333 - thanks!

Hello nimat223322 and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I'm a bit puzzled by this edit - you've said that this isn't a building any more yet has 3 levels?.

Also I don't understand why your comment above is "Ordnance Survey (c) Crown Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. Scale 1:1250"? We can't use regular Ordnance Survey maps as a source for OSM, but I'm not convinced that you have here - can you explain what you were trying to do?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Just to be clear, my example above IS named with that name in the real world - I specifically checked because the name rhat had been added looks like a spreadsheet faux pas. However, that's what the sign on it says - it is definitely a "name".
If you have surveyed to check that it is not named in the real world, then reflecting that info in OSM does make sense, of course.

Some of these things really have verifiable names - way/731794606 is an example (I was surprised by that because it looks like an import error, but isn't)

Please see forum discussion https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/wikidata-osm-cross-project-vandalism-report/139298