Thanks!

One other thing:
You've added a kerb node at node/13819691425/history , but there was already a kerb way mapped at way/522699904/history . It would have made sense to add the kerb node where the crossing way intersects with the kerb way, since that is where the kerb is.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I think that this edit has broken "Jubilee_Walkway_City_Loop" (relation/12890344). Have a look at https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=12890344 and you'll see the problem. That had problems beforehand (it was in 3 pieces) but is now worse (it is now in 6).
Please make sure that:
a) You fix these relations where you edited them
b) After future edits, you and the rest of Uber's editors always check for relation breakage with JOSM's validator. You can't rely on iD to tell you about relation breakage.
Best Regards,
Andy

Actually, no: It wasn't an iD edit that caused this but a JOSM one, so iD is blameless here.
There _is_ a validate button in JOSM which would have caught this before upload, but that button wasn't pressed...

Hello,
I think that you might have forgotten to check route connectivity again. :)
If you look at https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=68378 you can see at least one more gap than there was a few days ago.
Also way/1512359940/history seems to be missing "sidewalk=separate" tags.
It's easy to tell when you've edited a relation - just look at your changset (like " 56 (68378), v145 " below).
Best Regards,
Andy

Re "There clearly isn't any track or railway features remaining" there very definitely is - a flat railbed making its way through cuttings and over embankments, with bits of railway detritus around where the bridleway-making wombles haven't tidied it up.
Perhaps you should think about "railway=abandoned" as an attribute of the current "highway" tag? It's purpose is to define what is _currently_ there, not what once was.

Why did you delete relation/15969963/history and re-add way/1421957046#map=19/19.433810/-99.127993 here? What was wrong with the previous one?

Hello,
The DWG has received a complaint about way/1429276134#map=19/19.462473/-99.152047 saying that "this area is not one huge building".

Has node/9392750454/history really been turned from a public bookcase back into a public telephone? It seems unlikely...

Thanks

Thanks. The licence of that github repository (by an individual https://github.com/ghofinka ) is MIT, but what is the licence of the underlying data? The source of that is listed as https://www.nomor.net/_kodepos.php but that's just an ad-filled cesspit. I can't see where that got the data from and under what licence.

Just checking - is way/69417373/history really a kindergarten?

Hello (ref osm.org/user_blocks/20251),
Please do explain what a revert is for an what objects are in error.
In this case a new user had added an unlikely motorway with their first edit changeset/181841493 . It did make sense to revert the data (no motorways in this part of Java) but it also makes sense to be a bit more friendly about what the problem was and add a bit more explanation here.

What was the source of the data here (ref osm.org/user_blocks/20251 )?

Hello,
Can you explain what the problem was here, what actual objects were in error? You have used JOSM's reverter plugin but not explained what needed reverting and why.
(ref osm.org/user_blocks/20251 )

See also comment at https://en.osm.town/@SK53/115017119561900374 "Unlike virtually every other #OpenStreetMap feature it [separate sidewalk mapping] is not resilient when incomplete."

(somewhat related to changeset/182032968 ) you've added a separate sidewalk way/1506893728 to way/1214633815 but haven't tagged that road as "sidewalk=separate" or similar. That's necessary so that maps that actually show sidewalks can do so. You can see that at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#15/53.1192/-4.1267 - there you can see that way/806805686 is shown with a wider casing because it is tagged as "sidewalk=both" (which should now be "sidewalk=separate") but is not, because it has no "sidewalk" tag.

I've filled in the gap; see relation/11114801#map=19/53.117194/-4.120413 . My recollection here is that you'd just "walk across the road" here, but it needs someone to Actually Go There to see where the signage points and adjust as necessary.

Ah - never mind. Someone will fill in the gap, I'm sure.

Usually the positioning of the signs would tell you where the path should go?