Yes, that's what I gather. Are you able to correct it?

Hi, any chance that you know enough of the transit hub changes at airport to reroute the bus relations? Currently this (presumably temporary?) footway is breaking the bus routes: thttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391007287

Hi Andy,
I was a little surprised to find two relations at the time. I found that Sustrans don't indicate that the route will even get as far west as Porthcawl, and that "at the moment, only short sections of the route are open" https://www.sustrans.org.uk/find-a-route-on-the-national-cycle-network/route-88/
I thought I'd wait until more of the route was surveyed by mappers before deciding how / if to merge the two relations.
Kristian

Why have you created a carriageway separation here? This doesn't meet local mapping practices.

Can you please respond on one of these changesets or to my DM to find a solution to these edits you're trying to make. I will continue to revert any changes which are obviously incorrect before reaching out to the OSM Data Working Group should I-, or any other local user who has reached out to you-, not receive a response.

That feels like a misuse of the primary tag waterway= to me. I've not come across ways being effectively used as sat-nav routes or marine parking aisles. Have you got any examples you've followed?
Looking at it again, there's probably an argument for moving the other waterway=canal to historic:waterway too as it no longer exists as a canal, only a marina "parking aisle".

Did you mean to tag this way as derelict too? Don't want to delete it if so:
way/1256124288

I thought the same a split-second after hitting 'upload'. I might dwell on it for a little while longer and bundle it with some inevitable future updates shortly.

Hi, have you ever had any contact with the user whose changes you've reverted here?
@Atanas%20Angelov
I, and others, have reached out on other changesets without success.

Please, please, please halt your changes in this area until you have had the chance to discuss your method of mapping via my other changeset comments and DM. I'm currently finding a very large number of errors which will take time to revert.

Hi, Atanas, I've gone ahead and reverted this changeset as it's quite evidently an error. There are no bus guideways here currently and the modal access tags were up to date. What were you trying to achieve with these changes?

Have now updated to better represent access: changeset/168930634

I'll have a look later today, but I strongly suspect that it's a mapping error by Atanas. Although not designated 1-way, the end of Dulcie rd there does work as an effective mini rotary preventing gridlock where parked cars have made it too narrow for two lanes.

Those plans must surely be copyrighted, aren't they?

It sounds like they were referring to David St as it was pre-demolition. Without knowing which building plans you're referring to, I'm only guessing. However, OS Open Roads shows no road here named David St, and that certainly matches the on-the-ground status.

Forgot to mention, that maybe it would be suitable to add to openhistoricalmap.org?

What did you find it in the archives and which building plans have you found that are ODbL-compatible? At the moment, I can see that David St connected Broad Plain to Old Market St historically but the southern section was demolished (presumably) when One Temple Way was built. That the current service roads roughly follow the historic route is just happenstance.

Whichever one you're using to know the name of these two service roads.

How do you know that? I feel like I'm missing out on a potentially useful data source here!

Hi Sofia_111, was this an intential change to add the name to these two ways? They appear to be simple service roads for parking as far as I can see; way/531835851
way/531835850