Hello - same problem here as node/255395921 , although in this case wikipedia has Welsh, German and Swedish.

Hello,
Thanks for trying to add a missing wikipedia link here, but you've added a "ceb" one. This isn't an improvement. For information about the problems with the ceb wikipedia see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Cebuano_Wikipedia .
If somewhere doesn't have a wikipedia entry in a local language (here that'd be Scots Gaelic and English), it's probably not worth having a wikipedia link in OSM - although there is a Welsh article - https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beinn_a%27_Bheithir_-_Sgorr_Dhearg - not a local language but at least spoken on the same island)
The wikidata item remains, so it makes sense to keep that link.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Thanks for trying to fix a broken link here, but you've changed a (missing) "sv" wikipedia link into a (present, but content free) "ceb" one. This isn't an improvement. For information about the problems with the ceb wikipedia see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Cebuano_Wikipedia .
If somewhere doesn't have a wikipedia entry in a local language, it's probably not worth having a wikipedia link in OSM.
The wikidata item remains, so it makes sense to keep that link.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Andy from the DWG here.
Following complaints to the DWG I've reverted this and related changesets in changeset/141278101 and changeset/141279957 . See also osm.org/user_blocks/15052 .
To discuss, please email the DWG at “data@openstreetmap.org” with a subject of “Re: [Ticket#2023091410000226] Issue #26308 dpolovinkin”.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello SHARCRASH,
Why have you added a fixme back to way/893417283/history ? You added it 2 years ago, someone doubted its existence 6 months ago, someone else confirmed its non-existence 21 days and you've just added the fixme back again?
You have to learn to trust other mappers. Not every former path needs to be preserved as "abandoned:highway=path" - sometimes they really just aren't there any more.
Best Regards,
Andy

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/long-distance-hiking-trails-project/8693/161 .

Now complete. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/long-distance-hiking-trails-project/8693/161 .

Now complete. For details of the Wolds Way see the superroute and two routes in osm.wiki/Long-distance_footpaths_in_the_United_Kingdom#National_Trails_%28England_and_Wales%29 .
For how this affects the E2, see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/long-distance-hiking-trails-project/8693/161 .

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/culverts-with-level-1/103459/15 for more info

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/culverts-with-level-1/103459/15 for more info

Hello,
Andy from the DWG here. Surely some of these "cliffs" or "not-cliffs" must be visible from below, and someone can provide a photograph?
Best Regards,
Andy

Also deleting a bit of duplicate former railway across the Link Road in New Earswick.

This changeset (and many others by the same author) were reverted by changesets changeset/141059419 , changeset/141066786 , and changeset/141073455 . See osm.org/user_blocks/15020 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-September/030649.html for more information.

This changeset (and many others by the same author) were reverted by changesets changeset/141059419 , changeset/141066786 , and changeset/141073455 . See osm.org/user_blocks/15020 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-September/030649.html for more information.

This changeset (and many others by the same author) were reverted by changesets changeset/141059419 , changeset/141066786 , and changeset/141073455 . See osm.org/user_blocks/15020 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-September/030649.html for more information.

These changesets changeset/141059419 , changeset/141066786 , and changeset/141073455 revert a series of mechanical edits of cycle network info. See osm.org/user_blocks/15020 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-September/030649.html for more information.

These changesets changeset/141059419 , changeset/141066786 , and changeset/141073455 revert a series of mechanical edits of cycle network info. See osm.org/user_blocks/15020 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-September/030649.html for more information.

These changesets changeset/141059419 , changeset/141066786 , and changeset/141073455 revert a series of mechanical edits of cycle network info. See osm.org/user_blocks/15020 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-September/030649.html for more information.

Also ts0119b, ts0119c, ts0119d

Hello,
Andy from the DWG here. Generally speaking, whenever it's been discussed, most people have preferred using multipolygons only when necessary (because an inner and and outer is needed, or because of way node limits).
If I am mapping in an area and adding new features I definitely would replace "unnecessary" multipolygons in this way.
However, it makes sense to discuss the pros and cons of different sorts of mapping over at the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/se/49 . It's a shame that you didn't seem to make any attempt to do that, or even comment on a changeset, before this revert .
It'd be good to know what the benefits of the "multiple outer" approach is, and the forum is surely the best place to talk about that.
Best Regards,
Andy