Hello,
A gap seems to have appeared in relation/1216650#map=19/51.050944/0.597351 - presumably way/1464873396 needs to be split in two with the western half added to the relation?

That's a good question - I've not heard of a shopmobility that does sales as well. Searching https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/shop#values for "mobility" finds a few options; "medical_supply" is obviously a bit more generic.

Здравейте,
Можете ли да обясните етикета „cusine“ на node/13192384226? Това е аптека, а не ресторант.
С най-добри пожелания,
Анди

Hello,
Can you explain the "cusine" tag on node/13192384226 ? It is a pharmacy, not a restaurant.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Something (over the period of serveral years, actually) has gone wrong with relation/12890344 . I've patched up what I can, but there's still a gap at the Barbican. A few years ago it did this: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2irU but now there is a gap: relation/12890344#map=19/51.519698/-0.092814 . Where does that route go? Even trying to find a pedestrian route comes up with some silly suggestions: osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=51.5199261%2C-0.092497%3B51.5195382%2C-0.0927787#map=19/51.519813/-0.093170&layers=H .
Best Regards,
Andy

Merhaba,
Buraya eklenen nesnelerin isimlendirilmesini açıklayabilir misiniz? http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=172917036

Saygılarımla,
Andy

Hello,
Can you explain the naming of the objects added here http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=172917036 ?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hallo, könnten Sie bitte genauer erläutern, was Sie hier genau behoben haben? Unter http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=176902709 sehe ich nur Löschungen, keine Korrekturen.
Viele Grüße, Andy

Hello,
Can you explain in more detail what you actually fixed here? If I look at http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=176902709 I only see deletions, not fixes.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Andy from the DWG here again (as also in changeset/139049543 ). The best way of tagging this is "highway=footway; footway=sidewalk". If you do that you don't need to worry about what it is a path for, so you don't need to add an explicit "access=no" tag to stop people driving on it.
Tagging of this sort of thing is being discussed on the UK forum; see e.g. at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-access-no-tagging-of-uk-public-rights-of-way/132798 . I'd definitely suggest putting forward your point of view there.

Thanks!

Thanks - that's fixed it: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=31640

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks - based on that I've sent it to "yes"

Thanks!

Thanks!

I'm guessing that this might be a victim of the pesky "off by 1" error in the spreadsheet - This is allegedly "Micklefield" yet it is very near "Middlesmoor"!

Also a similar thing needs to happen to the Colne Valley Trail relation/12772894#map=17/51.509518/-0.549436 so that that doesn't have a gap in it.

(as it's not obvious how to add to a relation in iD)
Click on the bit of bridleway way/1299073967/history in iD, scroll down to the bottom at the left hand side, in "choose a parent relation" type in 31640 (you can get that number from the relations modified in this changeset below). Then hover over the newly added relation with the mouse so that it highlights it, and you can see that way/25690340/history needs splitting in two and the northern bit removing from the relation as well.