Hello,
Adding this created a gap in the Rochdale_Way 2596108. I've filled it in.
Cheers,
Andy

And also way/1461940070/history

And also way/1461940076/history

And also way/1461940073/history

Same applies to way/1461940075/history (also not sure why it is a tunnel, also lots of broken relations)

I don't know that there _isn't_ a TRO on it, but information from 3 years ago likely isn't going to help there.

See even though https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#22/51.70244/-1.27703/H/P for the LA PRoW view. Their PF stops at the gate (as is to be expected).

Hello,
There's now a tiny gap in relation/9058875#map=23/51.49475585/-0.12439015&layers=S .
Cheers,
Andy
For info see also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/id-visibility-of-relations/138374/21 )

Oops - I think that this might have introduced a gap in the Greensand Way. I filled it in in changeset/175276055 .
It's really an iD bug - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/id-visibility-of-relations/138374 .
Cheers,
Andy

Oops - in here you accidentally added some ways to one of the EV1 superrelations relation/2763798 (I've removed it now). It's actually really hard to tell in iD which relation is which; the only reliable way I've found of doing it is to know the relation ID beforehand and search for it by number.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/id-visibility-of-relations/138374 has more about the problem.

Hello,
node/478157148 is a gate, and the new way way/39864664 connects directly to it. Does it join north or south of the gate (I'm guessing that it's one of the two and Vespucci has just merged it onto a nearby node).
Also, I suspect that some of the relation relation/23309#map=19/51.673309/-0.867396 needs trimming to where the footpath starts.
Best Regards,
Andy

A value of "no;yes" on node/12436861257/history is clearly silly. I have set it back to the previous value before you edited it, which was "no".

You introduced a couple of typos here "yesx" - I've fixed them to "yes".

Alas,
"Remove duplicated section of highway" looks like it introduced a gap in the Chiltern Way. I fixed it in changeset/173753717 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
This introduced a gap in relation/23406 . I've filled it in in changeset/173753564 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Node node/7264956069/history had been dragged to one side here. I have reverted it.

Hello,
It's difficult to see (you have to scroll down to see "relations" in the iD editor), but the tertiary road was also part of a couple of townland boundaries. I've filled in the gap with way/1442583770 so that they no longer have a gap in them.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
way/1413120584/history has "name=222" on it - was that deliberate?
Best Regards,
Andy

What I had to do to edit the SR was to load the SR into iD by editing it from the website, then moving to osm.org/#map=20/53.3102525/-1.8310127 where both stages 1 and 2 are. From stage 2 (which was a member of the SR) I could select the SR. I could then go to stage 1 and add to the SR by number.

Hello,
You've removed way/863329639#map=20/51.3219246/-0.5583903 (which was part of a cycle route) here. Has that parallel cycleway really been removed? Must cyclists now either push their bikes on the pavement or cycle along the road?
Best Regards,
Andy