Blocked in osm.org/user_blocks/19496 and reverted in changeset/177373210 .

The "name:th-Latn" is a version of a Thai actual name - I wouldn't expect it to be easy to pronounce by an English speaker., the same way a French person might struggle with "Hampsthwaite" or an English person with "Fermanagh".
The problem with any "made up name for OSM" (regardless of where from) is that it's made up.

Brilliant, thanks!
Just checking - no brackets around the 66 implying "on the way to"?

Thanks - is it actually a "public_footpath" in IoM terms too? The corresponding bit of access track isn't: way/60545840

Yes, I commented on the original changeset to give them a chance to comment. These names were spotted as part of a DWG ticket where someone spotted a large number of other imported names (now deleted).
If no reply, we can remove the name and redact.

Hello,
Not sure how it happened, but I suspect that node/13147807436 is a duplicate of node/12857301617 (with a bit more info)?

Please don't use ChatGPT to make up English names for e.g. node/7252225925/history . If something doesn't have a name in English; that's OK - we don't need to invent one for OSM. If anyone wants to translate or transliterate an actual name they're entirely at liberty to do that.
(linked from https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/grokipedia-usage/140596/4 )

Thanks for tidying this up. I'm guessing that the short section at relation/11237#map=20/53.7511319/-2.1480591 should no longer be in NCN68 either?
I've also added a fixme to node/12084029747 (which I added a year ago) because it looks suspicious.

Just checking - is way/1467626781/history really part of the Millennium Way? It looks like it just goes into a field?

Hello,
I'm a bit surprised by the "vehicle=agricultural" tag on way/948841343/history . That suggests that anyone can use the track "for agricultural purposes". What's far more likely is that it is just private?
Best Regards.
Andy

Hello,
The gate at node/8988179995/history seems a bit confused. It has "locked=yes;no" and "width=3.65;1.05".
If there are two gates, I'd map them separately.
Best Regards,
Andy

Looking at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/302714101 , that was previously a stream and then changed to river with a comment of "Various additions and fixes". It was then changed back to stream with a changeset comment of "Modified features". Neither of those comments explain what criteria were used for tagging Lucas Creek one way or the other.

It's intermittent. The imagery looks like it was taken when it was fairly dry. Given the location I'd expect it to be fairly dry most of the time but occasionally very wet indeed.

I suggested elsewhere discussing these edits in the US forum to get a wider consensus,

Looking at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/302714101 , that was previously a stream and then changed to river with a comment of "Various additions and fixes". It was then changed back to stream with a changeset comment of "Modified features". Neither of those comments explain what criteria were used for tagging Lucas Creek one way or the other.

It's intermittent. The imagery looks like it was taken when it was fairly dry. Given the location I'd expect it to be fairly dry most of the time but occasionally very wet indeed.

I suggested elsewhere discussing these edits in the US forum to get a wider consensus,

Hello Mom Tomahawk and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Please do use better changeset comments than "Modified features".
Instead, say what you modified and why, and what source you used.

No - I'm suggesting a specific discussion about these streams in the USA forum.

Thanks!

@NeisBot this change looks OK; the previous one was the problem. You can see that in the area around way/1467064038 in http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=177219478 . What is in OSM now matches ESRI and is slightly offset from Bing. What was there before matched no available imagery.

In at least one example the deletion here is OK and the previous edit by another mapper was dubious. See changeset/176332487

Hallo padvinder,
Je hebt hier 22 dagen geleden een paar gebouwen toegevoegd, maar die lijken nu niet meer op de Bing-afbeeldingen te staan. Zo is bijvoorbeeld way/1460891851/history verwijderd. Op de afbeeldingen zie ik wel een aangrenzend gebouw dat een andere mapper heeft toegevoegd: way/1466544835, maar niet dat van jou.

Heb je enig idee wat er aan de hand kan zijn?

Met vriendelijke groet,
Andy

Hello padvinder,
You added a few buildings here 22 days ago, but they really don't seem to exist on the Bing imagery now. As an example, way/1460891851/history was deleted - on the imagery I can see an adjacent building that another mapper added way/1466544835 but not yours.
Do you have any idea what might be happening?
Best Regards,
Andy