Kysymyksestä maankäytön liimaamisesta teihin, mielestäni useimmat kartoittajat nykyään yrittäisivät olla tekemättä sitä. Myös landuse=residential#Separation_from_roads sanoo: "Maankäytön liimaamista tieviivoihin ei suositella. Liimattu maankäyttö tekee datan kanssa työskentelystä paljon vaikeampaa. On parempi, että maankäytön raja päättyy tien reunaan, ajoradan reunaan tai että se menee kokonaan päällekkäin tien kanssa, jos sama maankäyttö jatkuu toisella puolella."

On the question of gluing landuse to roads, I think most mappers nowadays would try not to do it. Also, landuse=residential#Separation_from_roads says "It is strongly discouraged to glue landuse to road lines. Glued landuse makes the data much harder to work with. It is better to have the landuse boundary stop at the edge of the road, the edge of right of way, or overlap the road completely if the same landuse continues on the other side. "

There isn't really such a thing as "access=agricultural" in England and Wales. Sometimes access along lanes like this will be private, and sometimes people keeping sheep will rent fields off each other , but their access doesn't make it "not private". Sometimes there may be permissive foot or horse access and sometimes (though not here) a legal right of way.
Here there may also be some sort of fishing access to the Nidd?
When the weather improves a bit and I do the next bit of Nidderdale Way I might get chance to have a look :)

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.