I'm guessing that "shop=mechanic" might be a leftover from before this was a pub?
Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
It looks like the "amenity=pub" tag got accidentally deleted from "The Pint Shop" here - I've added it back.
Best Regards,
Andy

Please don't "delete everything and remap" - it is far too easy to forget something.

There are quite a few others, including but not limited to:

<tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node/2034657935
<tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node/2034657941
<tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node/2034657922
<tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node/2034657944
<tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node/2034684470
<tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node/2034684487
<tag k="source" v="Google street view;MML2012"/>
way/192934768
<tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node/2034684470

Are you sure that you did not use "Google Street View" for any of them and just happened to type that in as a source "by accident"?

(prompted to come here by the help question)
The relevant OSM wiki page is osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element - essentially you wouldn't add 2 things in OSM for one thing in the real world. However, that page doesn't say that a patch of water can't be part of 2 larger sea areas - the bits of harbour here obviously are bits of harbour, but they're also part of the larger fjord.

The only changes here were at the far northeast and southwest ends of this box.

Thanks!

Hello,
Are way/994072710 and way/994072711 really part of relation/2382950#map=15/50.4389/-4.7598 ? They look like an od outlier.
Best Regards,
Andy

For completeness, relation/937230#map=13/51.7836/-1.4928&layers=C in Witney is very much _proposed_, and (following discussions on IRC with people who know about such things) is a reasonable route that NCN57 might be allowed to take through here. It probably isn't the cyclists' preferred route, but is perhaps the most likely one.

Hello,
Thanks for deleting the "not a real path" here - it looked like it went straight over a cliff, which didn't look like a good idea at all!
Just one question - do you know how tje Ebor Way gets around it? You can see the gap at relation/370663#map=17/53.91698/-1.80719 . If not, never mind - I might get the chance to scout for signposts at some point.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I'm guessing that the "highway=yes" tag on way/984089536 is an accident?
Best Regards,
Andy

Apparently, https://www.instagram.com/explore/locations/704228086423911/Hotel%20Gaj%20Kesri/ has been updated to point to the right place...

OK, Facebook say that they'll update the hotel in question (although I suspect it'll take a little while before that change appears in mobile apps), and they'll also think about how to better handle "Instagram reports" of the type you did above, and direct emails, which didn't work when I tried it a week ago.

As well as emailing I did the 21st century equivalent of going around the back of the house and throwing small stones at a bedroom window to gain attention, which seems to have worked. Watch this space...

I had no reply from Facebook so I've emailed them again. Unfortunately their lack of reply so far was not unexpected given my previous dealings with them as an organisation.

Lots of boundaries use way/377155716 here but the 3 townland boundaries use way/377155595 and way/1031961783 so that the bridge and the river don't "join", and all are valid multipolygons.

Perhaps a check with the reporter that you had actually fixed their problem would help prevent this sort of issue in the future?

@Nadzeya_ , perhaps you could expand on exactly what "customer feedback" you received here that caused you to add buildings that had apparently been demolished years ago?

Thanks - if it really exists, it makes sense to keep it.

One more quick question - is the spur of the Ouse Valley Way up Church Street really there?

relation/165638#map=17/52.15045/-0.70085&layers=H