Hello,
I know this was a year ago, but I'm just wondering what prompted the addition of "access=no" on way/852181100/history#map=18/53.749696/-2.056549 ? It was already tagged as "motor_vehicle=private" and various other transport modes as "yes". It's not "wrong", just ... unusual?
Best Regards,
Andy

For clarity, the only change here was to add a layer=1 tag to the bridge way/91855831/history .

There may be more signage (worth going back to have a look) beyond "no access to allotments". Also several different surfaces here, so splitting would make sense.

Hello,
I'd suggest explaining to everyone at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/its-time-to-address-the-a8-m/117468 the reasoning behind this change.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Thanks!

Per https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945/11 , could you please explain what you changed here and why?

Per https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945/11 , could you please explain what you changed here and why?

Also, the whole public bridleway is also definitely bicycle=yes (there's a legal right to cycle along bridleways in England and Wales) - but I appreciate that you didn't add that tag here.

The wiki statement "Roads used for access to permanent human settlements or facilities should generally not use this tag" is on one level utter rubbish (because, as here, there's very often a mix of access to both fields _and_ the people who live in or near them) and also understandable as a pushback against (I think) a previous version of the iD editor's suggestion that "highway=track" be used for more than just agricultural access: osm.wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions#Calling_a_highway=track_an_%22unmaintained_track_road%22 .
Whenever changing highway tags ideally you should do an actual survey, but if you can't do that you absolutely should look at the available sources, and here OS OpenData suggests that your "residential" road is probably functionally someone's driveway, as well as being the start of the track going west.

Someone at Microsoft has said (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945/4 ) that they'll review these edits for errors - I hope they are doing that.
With a DWG hat on I don't think I'm going to be reviewing all 2714 or so remaining ones - in the event of no action by Microsoft all that I can see that I could usefully do is to block accounts to force a review - but obviously it makes sense to try and help people understand some of the issues first.

@Spaghetti%20Monster%F0%9F%8D%9D You haven't answered the question :)

"bar_billiards" is a completely different game to billiards.

@Spaghetti%20Monster%F0%9F%8D%9D - have you ever been to this area of Cyprus?

Hello,
I don't think that there is anything that suggests that way/812960030/history is part of the public road network, is there? OS OpenData suggests not (just look at that layer in an editor) and the rights of way data suggests that the whole thing is actually bridleway: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/50.9962/-0.1375/H/P .
See also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945 .

Hello,
Sorry for not spotting this comment for 5 months!
There are a number of "iD relation" issues, some of which you can see at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+relation .
What happened here was basically due to https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/10184 . When you remap something and you want to add it back to the relation, you need to choose which relation to add it to. The fundamental problem is that iD does not show object IDs, so (here) you have to choose between the name "EuroVelo 2 - Capitals Route - part United Kingdom 5" and the name "EuroVelo 2 - Capitals Route - part United Kingdom". The latter is "type=superroute", but iD doesn't show relation type either.
Also, when you hover over a way member of either relation iD will highlight all the same ways, because for superroutes it shows ways in constituent routes.
The (largely undocumented) answer is to find the relation number that you want by clicking on (in this case) way/1272629446 and "view on OSM". That tells you the relation number (in this case 5479817) and in iD when selecting a "parent relation" you can actually search (which isn't obvious) and can also search by number (even less so).
Cheers,
Andy

Thanks Paul,
"addr:village" makes much more sense to me.
As for post town tagging, maybe it needs a run across the mailing list or even a poll on the forum. The last round brought forth gems like https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-January/022424.html and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-January/022413.html (and, to be fair plenty of others with different views).
Cheers,
Andy

Oops - wrong account - should have been @SomeoneElse2

This changeset is massive only because the gas pipeline way/196268956 is very long!

Hello,
I'm not convinced that High Bentham (misspelt here as "Hgh Bentham") is a suburb of Lancaster! It's a very long way away and in a different county.
Wars have started for less :)
Best Regards,
Andy