The tag destroyed=yes is incorrect as these bridges still exist on the map. You need to use the lifecycle prefix instead. If you're not sure how to correct it, I'm happy to revert the changeset, thanks

The tag destroyed=yes is incorrect as these still exist on the map. You need to use the lifecycle prefix instead. If you're not sure how to correct it, I'll revert the changeset, thanks

Just convert the imagery link on the page into a TMS link

OSM is only for mapping what is actually on the ground. The camera no longer exists so has been deleted.

#nepal-flood-2026-trisuli-bhotekoshi

#nepal-flood-2026-trisuli-bhotekoshi

#nepal-flood-2026-trisuli-bhotekoshi

I didn't update the route because the official council advice for cyclists is to "turn around and go back" due to the stairs.
There is no official replacement route through the area and the highway is quite narrow.

The route still exists as the ferry operator has sold the boat three times previously, which shuts down the service until they procure a new one.

This is the second changeset. I changed access to "No" in the previous changeset #174599111.
I added the suffix to the name otherwise I find that users cannot understand why the routing fails and it tends to get changed back.

You will see from the history I tried a few different land use tags, however in all cases the property boundary is obstructed by the sand dunes when looking at it on both Openstreetmap.org and OSMAnd. In the local area the property owners are now asserting boundaries, with police getting called regularly, however fences cannot be constructed in sand dunes. Therefore a clear view of the property boundary is more important than an outline of the sand dune. I agree that we shouldn't map for the renderer, however in this specific case it's making best use of clumsy website programming by OSM.org.

Spam comment from new user account created today.

Hi Supt, just a heads up the tag "access=designated" is a deprecated tag, as I noticed you've used it a bit lately. Just letting you know, cheers!
access=designated

Additional comment/proof: In the list below, you will see "v1" next to hundreds of items, which means it is a brand new item in this changeset. I'm not sure why this is occurring , but please find a different way of working to avoid this, otherwise future change sets will simply be reversed.

I'm also finding this as well. For example way/1278695637 has no history other than creation of the way by yourself and it's not in the correct relation anymore. I understand it might be unintentional but there's almost never a reason to delete data and then recreate it. We don't want to discourage new editors like yourself from contributing, however the work does need to be correctly to avoid creating extra work for others. I would suggest doing your work in separate much smaller changesets to avoid losing all your work if your changesets are later reversed to preserve data integrity. Also noting I've previously raised this issue on a separate changeset of yours. Thanks

I've removed a lot of your "cycleway=separate" tags, as these are reserved for road infrastructure where the cycle lane is part of the road, and has a barrier. In these cases that I've removed, the cycling way is completely separate to the road and is already mapped separately. Link below for future reference. Cheers
cycleway=separate

Hi Hannah, in the future please don't delete ways without first understanding the relations that they are in. Some of the sections of trail that you're deleting then re-creating are part of bigger relations, and you're not adding them back in. Eg The East Link Trail is a group of paths (ways) which make up one long trail which is called a relation in OSM. I'm fixing the ones I find but can you please look up how to do it correctly oherwise some of your change sets may need to be reversed. Thank you.

Thanks Ewen, I updated the relation name in the same changeset so you might need to refresh your browser cache.
Crater to Coast was a short term name and the C2T name is correct as per council website and a phone call to the council. I suspect in the future they will rename this section to The Twelve Apostles Trail but as it stands today they are two different named trails from Timboon.

Hi Ian, that was probably unintentional, as this was one of many changesets I did for the Canning. Just now I've updated the entire Canning route to mark it unpaved, with the exception of the first tiny bitumen section in Wiluna. Cheers, David

Yeah go for it