Alas, you only fixed this one address, not the 100s of other made-up addresses that you added, hence the need for a revert.

The postcode differs from that on the website?

Are you sure that the address of node/13697101302 is correct? Monmore Road is to the east, just south of the dog track: way/73717871 .

For relation/10411148 I'm guessing "Yetholm" rather than "Yeltholm" maybe?
(I know that you didn't originate the name...)

Thanks!

I think you've mangled the operator on way/394544828/history - it doesn't seem valid UTF-8

Hello,
What actually is way/163099441/history ? It was a "planned highway-track" and is now a "proposed railway", but it doesn't connect to anything?
Best Regards,
Andy

Bonjour michel60,

Vous avez incorrectement transformé les terres agricoles à l'adresse way/41809831 en « cour de ferme ». Un simple coup d'œil aux images confirme qu'il s'agit bien de terres agricoles.

Dans ce commentaire, vous avez écrit : « osmose 1310 `building=yes` à l'intérieur de `landuse=farmland` ». OsmOse ne justifie en aucun cas de modifier des données que vous n'avez pas vous-même relevées. Une grande partie de ses indications sont erronées, et cet avertissement en est un exemple.

Veuillez immédiatement rétablir en terres agricoles toutes les cours de ferme que vous avez créées suite à l'avertissement d'OsmOse.

Cordialement,

Andy Townsend, au nom du groupe de travail sur les données d'OSM.

Hello michel60,

You have incorrectly changed the farmland at way/41809831 into a "farmyard". A glance at the imagery shows that it is definitely still farmland.
In this changeset comment you have said "osmose 1310 `building=yes` à l'intérieur de `landuse=farmland`". OsmOse is not a reason to change anything that you have not surveyed yourself. Much of what it says is rubbish, and this warning is an example of that.
Please immediately change back to farmland all farmyards that you created because of OsmOse's warning.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

C'mon, "Removed duplicating FHRS as perpetrator was too lazy to do it themselves" so not going to win any friends or influence people that your way of doing things is correct.

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. In this changeset you extended way/938308562 via a series of nodes such as node/13452657355 .
First things first, it isn't a public right of way. The one in this area can be seen at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#17/51.14761/-3.08161/H/P .
In this changeset it is tagged as a "highway=path; surface=grass". On its own, "highway=path" is not a useful tag. It does not say what the path was designed for and it does not say what the access rights are. It was subsequently deleted in changeset/179639561 saying that it was not, in fact, a footpath.
Although Strava's heatmap can be useful for adding things that you know are paths, you need to be careful as some Strava users have a habit of taking "short cuts" that don't match anything on the ground. If someone on Strava has bushwhacked a path around a field it's not OK to add that as a "path".
Obviously, it's OK to add paths that are _not_ public rights of way to OSM, but it makes sense to ensure that access rights are set correctly (see e.g. way/1487223711 - although perhaps "foot=permissive" would have been better than "access=permissive".
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello - @recoverpoint , could you please try and be a bit more specific? http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=179667065 visualises the changes here - what is wrong and what should be changed?
@KennyDap , comments like yours above don't help, either.

Hello,

Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here - we've received a complaint about this deletion. What was added to OSM here was only what is visible from aerial imagery (that it is obviously a swimming pool, and obviously a private one). Continuing to delete it won't work because people will just see it on aerial imagery again and re-add it.

If you don't want your pool to appear on aerial imagery please contact the relevant providers. Alternatively, you could perhaps consider trying to camouflage it?

Best Regards,
Andy

If you'd like to email the DWG directly about this please email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2026032710000556] BiboORM" with what you'd like to say in the message.

Best Regards,
Andy

The second problem is that what is safeguarded is not a _line_ but an _area_ (actually, different classifications of areas - surface and subsurface). Rather than just adding a line I'd suggest discussing with the UK community in the forum how best to represent the data. That's what happened for the proposed HS2 lines (and bridge, tunnel and culvert information was added there). If you are in "an area of sub-surface interest" then you may get construction noise and vibration, but if you're in "an area of surface interest" you have a much bigger problem (RIP the Bree Louise at Euston).

Hello, Andy from the DWG here. We've received a complaint about this and other "planned" metro edits of yours across Europe.

Concentrating on this one first, what is the source of the data and what is the licence of the data from that source? You list https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning-for-the-future/bakerloo-line-extension as a website, but the linked Arcgis map there is "Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2020. OS 100030994. | Transport for London. © Crown copyright and database rights 2025 Ordnance Survey AC0000806239". I'd be surprised if the data _wasn't_ available under OGLv3 somewhere but you need to find it and quote it as a source.

> Cycle access is undefined by default for footways in OSM

Untrue. `highway=footway; footway=sidewalk` makes it clear what the legal situation is. Where have you read that cycling on a `highway=footway; footway=sidewalk` is legal? If a router was assuming that (and you have presented no evidence that any are) where can it have got that information from?

Someone's found a picture: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/marker-stile/142518/7 - I can see why people might get confused!

@Davileci How is that relevant, and how does it negate the signage visible at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/usuarios-editando-en-espana-bajo-sospecha-vandalismo-malas-practicas-y-otros/2510/143 ?

Ah - thanks. I guess we can leave the extra parallel bits north of the A507 until someone can explore there...