Sorry it's another world-spanning changeset. These changes were genuinely worldwide.

Thanks

Camino Mozarabe?
Shome mishtake shurely...

Hello,
Just wondered, did you do this via a JOSM revert? The changeset tags suggest you did, but the only change https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1052845128 suggests not.
We (the DWG) have had a number of complaints about people "reverting other people's changes" (including this one) when it doesn't actually look like the net result was a revert at all.
For the avoidance of doubt, changing access=YES to access=yes seems an entirely reasonable change, with the caveat that just removing the tag would make more sense given that it is a footway with a foot=yes tag already.
Best Regards.
Andy (from the DWG)

Привет,
Каков был источник номера дома на way/949343871?
Наилучшие пожелания,
Энди

Hello,
What was the source of the housenumber on way/949343871 ?
Best Regards,
Andy

Coulton, from survey 10/4/2022, tr8728a

@Alex3271 One thing that would help - can you link to roads that have been wrongly classified as tertiary here? For example, if way/186212695 is a problem, click on that link and paste that in here. That makes it easier to understand the problem than having to work it out from co-ordinates.

To be fair, https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hK4 "went through someone's garden" before these edits, but the fact that that wasn't spotted here suggests that there hasn't been any care and attention to what was actually there.

@Alex3271 Thanks.
@G626 Another contributor has emailed the DWG and confirmed the problem with the road that apparently goes through someone's private garden. Can you please explain these edits?

Thanks - it was supposed to be "pasture", actually.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Subscribe to the list by filling in the form at that address, confirm the email that comes your way, and then send and email to the list.

I'd suggest that you discuss it with other Canadian mappers on the talk-ca mailing list, just so that everyone is on the same page.

Yes!

For the avoidance of doubt, wikipedia's licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ isn't compatible with OSM's https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ . However, its extremely likely in this case that the there will be sources for the names that you have added (that wikipedia has itself used) that _will_ be compatible with OSM.

Hello,
Please use more descriptive comments than just "Correcting name: #somehashtag". Explain what you changed, and why you changed it.
Here https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/relation/1152717 it looks like you're correcting the spelling of a tag that you yourself previously added. No-one's going to complain about that, and if you say what you've done in the changeset everyone will know.
Best Regards,
Andy

"How: via message... obviously!"
Thanks, but that's absolutely not obvious. There are dozens of ways that OSM mappers can discuss things, and an OSM private message is just one.
I'd actually suggest changeset disccussion comments (like this one) is a better option because it means other people familiar with the area can comment too.

... and here we go again.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are a "vandal".
As to other contributors providing evidence - your own photographs showed that they were at least partially correct!
It appears that everything in osm.org/user_blocks/5311 still applies.
Please take a step back and consider how you deal with other people in the project. If you don't change your ways we may have to restrict your future access to it.
And please, don't try and "argue" with this comment that I have just made. It will be counterproductive.

In summary - I can see your point of view, and I can also see the point of view of those who say that you're wrong. Unlike your profile picture, not everything in OSM is black and white - sometimes we need to discuss things with other people and come to a compromise.

Re the changes to 965429633, I've had a look at the pictures. The tags that it has had can be seen at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/965429633 .

Working up the hill, it clearly has/had some legal status
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x2eFZ5sWSsKAA6CmYv9i6KWSKysEQ6hX/edit
20220404_170504.jpg
(Avis au public)

and at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18nuQ_3PvAE1_D7KzSN55FWjjeP9rL5Ii/edit
20220404_170403.jpg
a bit of the old surface underneath can be seen

however at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17ZNDe39d7jzAXS-HhweLz5wYG3sB5ULZ/edit
20220404_170255.jpg
although the old surface can be seen,it doesn't look wide enough to be a track

Further up the hill
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X5M_fTc6o1U17qo_pVBYeqQZ69fb41Tr/edit
20220404_170240.jpg
doesn't look like much of a track any more - extra tags would surely help to better describe it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tvNQP9QXMrlU_IJNJjBA9nQBY1wm-_ih/edit
20220404_170232.jpg
doesn't look like a track any more - it just looks like a gap between the trees.