Hello,
Would it be possible to provide a bit more detail about why you made this edit (and all your other ones)? "Fixed highway issue" doesn't say anything, "#maproulette" just says that you didn't actually survey it and "#tomtom" is just who you work for.

More detail: The deleted path can be seen at http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=176892302 .
Previously the DWG was involved with edits here because of complaints that a path that did not exist was added through a wall at way/1184613232 , and photographs were provided to support that.

Generally speaking in Scotland, https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/ will apply. See https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/sites/default/files/2018-05/Publication%202005%20-%20Scottish%20Outdoor%20Access%20Code.pdf for an English PDF version. Please read that to understand where public access is (and is not) generally allowed in Scotland.

Also, I wouldn't use _only_ the Esri imagery here. It is relatively poor quality and is significantly offset. Please instead use all available sources.

However, even on the Esri imagery the path to the weir is clearly visible, so I'm somewhat surprised that the path here was deleted with only the comment above; I'd have expected something that balanced whatever information you were given in feedback with what is visible in imagery to explain the edit.

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. We've had a complaint from a local resident that you've deleted a path that actually exists.
Please provide details of the sources that you used to make these edits. If you can do that publicly please comment here; if you can't then please email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2026010810000309] [OpenStreetMap] World_Winner" with details in the email.
Best Regards,
Andy

See also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/heavy-handed-rework-of-barbican-london/140254/7 , which suggests that a revert of some of the problem changes needs to happen.

Buses indicated as stopped here now stop from ED instead from 20:30 in the evening.

Hello,
A gap seems to have appeared in relation/1216650#map=19/51.050944/0.597351 - presumably way/1464873396 needs to be split in two with the western half added to the relation?

That's a good question - I've not heard of a shopmobility that does sales as well. Searching https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/shop#values for "mobility" finds a few options; "medical_supply" is obviously a bit more generic.

Здравейте,
Можете ли да обясните етикета „cusine“ на node/13192384226? Това е аптека, а не ресторант.
С най-добри пожелания,
Анди

Hello,
Can you explain the "cusine" tag on node/13192384226 ? It is a pharmacy, not a restaurant.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Something (over the period of serveral years, actually) has gone wrong with relation/12890344 . I've patched up what I can, but there's still a gap at the Barbican. A few years ago it did this: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2irU but now there is a gap: relation/12890344#map=19/51.519698/-0.092814 . Where does that route go? Even trying to find a pedestrian route comes up with some silly suggestions: osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=51.5199261%2C-0.092497%3B51.5195382%2C-0.0927787#map=19/51.519813/-0.093170&layers=H .
Best Regards,
Andy

Merhaba,
Buraya eklenen nesnelerin isimlendirilmesini açıklayabilir misiniz? http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=172917036

Saygılarımla,
Andy

Hello,
Can you explain the naming of the objects added here http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=172917036 ?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hallo, könnten Sie bitte genauer erläutern, was Sie hier genau behoben haben? Unter http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=176902709 sehe ich nur Löschungen, keine Korrekturen.
Viele Grüße, Andy

Hello,
Can you explain in more detail what you actually fixed here? If I look at http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=176902709 I only see deletions, not fixes.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Andy from the DWG here again (as also in changeset/139049543 ). The best way of tagging this is "highway=footway; footway=sidewalk". If you do that you don't need to worry about what it is a path for, so you don't need to add an explicit "access=no" tag to stop people driving on it.
Tagging of this sort of thing is being discussed on the UK forum; see e.g. at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-access-no-tagging-of-uk-public-rights-of-way/132798 . I'd definitely suggest putting forward your point of view there.

Thanks!

Thanks - that's fixed it: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=31640

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks - based on that I've sent it to "yes"