Hello,
The route of NCN9 looks a bit confused here (and has done for a while): relation/1399870#map=15/54.42631/-6.43496 . Do you happen to know where it actually goes?
Best Regards,
Andy

Also Strensall Common, ts2706b, 22/04/2026

Purely accidental I'm sure - I have reverted it in changeset/182040260 .

Actually - just noticed wikipedia: https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ste%C3%B2rnabhagh - is "Stornoway" OK here?

I never new that the Welsh name for Stornoway was the same as the English - I'd have expected something much closer to the Scots Gaelic one!

Hi Will,
The new bit I added way/1503887691 isn't a road, it's just a "relation member" of those townlands and anglican parishes. You can see the faint line at osm.org/#map=19/53.585524/-7.135129 , but that map doesn't show many names at that zoom level.
Many maps do update pretty much immediately the OSM data updates, although sometimes there's some caching involved - it wouldn't surprise me if it took a day or so. Eventually Hiskinstown and Williamstown (Rochford) will appear in the same way that Mulchanstown does at osm.org/#map=18/53.586003/-7.136881 .
As for Google Maps - no, we can't use that, due to various licence compatibility issues. See e.g. osm.wiki/FAQ#Why_don't_you_just_use_Google_Maps/whoever_for_your_data? .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Thanks for updating this. There were a couple of townlands and a couple of parishes that shared the line of the previous road, so I've added in a new line way/1503887691/history and added them to that to fill in the gap.
Unfortunately these "relationship memberships" aren't really clear in the online editor...
Best Regards,
Andy

Actually, rather than individual changeset discussions, the forum (perhaps https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/dear-adt-team-for-sarawak-please-do-better/143234 ) might be a better place.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,
Due to some other issues, the changeset that you were fixing was reverted here - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/please-review-added-the-british-overseas-territories-to-the-uk-and-uk-eez-relations/143296/5 .
Can you recheck that whatever you were checking is now still OK?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,

Please see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/please-review-added-the-british-overseas-territories-to-the-uk-and-uk-eez-relations/143296 and the replies that say "revert and discuss".

I definitely think that there is a discussion to be had, particularly about "what should be in the EEZ", but that needs to happen in the forum first.

Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

I've removed the "natural" tag in changeset/181713310 , and also added the wikipedia link. The wikipedia article picture is far more impressive than most of it!

Alas, editing resumed before Uber added OEG entries for this activity, hence osm.org/user_blocks/20174 .

Hello,
Can you explain what "realign for testing" means here?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
A bunch of trees were added with "denotation=urbanaccess=permissive_amenity=parking_capacity=58_capacity:disabled=2_covered=no_fee=no_operator=rogue_credit_union_operator:type=business_parking=surface_surface=asphalt" here, I guess that "urban" was meant?
Cheers,
Andy

You can't just use something as a source that you "found on the Internet". See osm.wiki/Copyright etc.

> as I have provided

?

Hello,
You've updated the population here with a source of https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/wales/W06000023__powys/ . Under what licence was that data made available to you? The site you link merely says "© Thomas Brinkhoff" which of course would not be compatible with OSM without an explicit waiver.
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG) again.

Hello,
You've made this change with a comment of "Has town status.". What does that actually mean?
Personally, I've always thought of Melbourne as a large village.
Best Regards,
Andy

Rather than just "making a lot of changes" please do discuss things like this in the UK forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86 . People may well agree that "town status" (whatever that means) is enough to change the OSM place tag, or they may not, but it is important that a discussion happens.

Nothing will find node/9238774996 . You have not told OSM what it is.
Also wikipedia is not a valid source for OSM because its licence is not compatible.