Hello,
Please don't add the name of route relations like the Pennine Way to the paths and roads that make up that route, unless the path or track does actually have that unique name itself.
Maps that want to use the actual road name won't be able to if you've used a "made up" road name like this. Some maps choose to show long distance paths and some choose not to - it's the choice of the individual map.
Best Regards,
Andy
PS: Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

For info, I also joined up the cycle route around the roundabout at relation/937230#map=19/51.78398/-1.48197 .

Hello, if you were cycling along way/681393413 how would you get to the road to the west? Do they actually connect (in which case there should be a connection in OSM) or would you have to push your bike down part of way/1031836905 to the crossing and then join the road there?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello Bolt023,
Please update your user profile so that everyone knows your are an editor working on edits organised by Bolt. See @Bolt022 for an example.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello luxiaghd and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Please use changeset comments that explain what your changes actually are and what sources you used. That way, people will be able to understand better what you have changed.
Best Regards,
Andy

Great, thanks!

I've posted to the two lists:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-es/2022-March/018069.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2022-March/087386.html

(we did try and make contact via talk-africa, but there was no engagement there because I don't think that Moroccan mappers are active there).

Hello Balli Abokor,
What were you trying to change here? I've reverted it because it introduced an unclosed boundary relation.
Please use changeset comments that help people to understand what you are actually trying to do, not just "fix".
Best Regards,
Andy

Perhaps you could un-revert your revert and close the relations?

> The sea border there has not yet been finally clarified.

The discussion on "talk" and "talk-es" were broadly supportive of this sort of sea border. Was there a particular problem with the implementation here? Maybe reply to the old "talk" thread if there was.

Re the relation membership of way/1042639943 - good spot! It looks like the "named" section to the southeast also should be added to the relations too.

Hello,
In this change you added the tag "tag" with the value "value" to way/199483470/history . I guess that was just a test?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
As you may have noticed, if you change one thing in one place, and another on the other side of the world, you'll get a changeset like this one changeset/118677136 that looks huge, even though it's only adding three buildings. You can avoid that happening by doing a "save" before moving from one place to the other.
Also, you can "square" buildings as you add them by pressing "q" in the editor.
I hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to help.
Any other questions please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks; I use "name:signed" but had no idea people had been adding "signed:name" in some places in the UK!

You might be interested in https://github.com/systemed/tilemaker/issues/398#issuecomment-1073749981 , which discusses relation/13915560 .

Hello,
I've asked what the problem with this change was at changeset/118668008 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hallo Garmin-User,
Ich denke, das vorherige Änderungsset changeset/118650315, das Sie hier rückgängig gemacht haben, ist ein Versuch, das unter hervorgehobene Problem zu beheben
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2021-May/086544.html (siehe auch die Links von dort, und auch https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-africa/2021-February /000571.html ).
Was war das Problem mit changeset/118650315 ? Ein kurzer Blick mit Overpass auf diese Änderung zeigt mir keine offensichtlichen Probleme.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Andy (von der DWG)

Hello Garmin-User,
I think the previous changeset changeset/118650315 that you've undone here is an attempt to fix the problem highlighted at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2021-May/086544.html (see also the links from there, and also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-africa/2021-February/000571.html ).
What was the problem with changeset/118650315 ? A quick look using overpass at that change doesn't reveal any obvious problems to me.
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

Hello andrewpmk,
What actually was the change here?
The reason that I ask is that Osmose is notorious for false positives - with a DWG hat on I recently had to revert quite a lot of "Osmose-only" changes in Europe because it had corrupted names.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello Fred,
Please don't change OSM in a way that loses information. Make sure that the full sense of what was tagged before is not lost.
Best Regards,
Andy

Привет Мосстрит,
Пожалуйста, используйте значимые изменения для ваших комментариев, объясняя, что вы изменили и каков был источник. Использование «разное» каждый раз не помогает другим мапперам понять, что вы изменили.
С уважением,
Энди

Hello mosstreet,
Please use meaningful changes for your comments, explaining what you changed and what the source was. Using "разное" ("different") every time does not help other mappers to understand what you have changed.
Best Regards,
Andy