Thanks, but Telegram isn't really open to anyone to see it! I'd definitely recommend saying whatever needs saying in some "open" space too. You can also link it in changeset comments, so that people can see what was said on the discussion from there.

Hello,
Just to let you know, the Data Working Group have had a complaint from within the Serbian community about changing area=yes;highway=" to "area:highway=". I don't know how how widespread this concern is, but would definitely suggest that you engage with the Serbian community (perhaps https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/rs/64 might be a good place).
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,
Just to let you know, the Data Working Group have had a complaint from within the Serbian community about changing area=yes;highway=" to "area:highway=". I don't know how how widespread this concern is, but would definitely suggest that you engage with the Serbian community (perhaps https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/rs/64 might be a good place).
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Are you sure that you haven't lost information here?
I don't think that "ruins" really does it justice: https://www.york.ac.uk/lifelonglearning/sciencetrail/dragonstones/

Hello,
I came across this in the context of way/1046339418/history , and was wondering how this changeset was an improvement?
I personally wouldn't have added "operator:wikipedia" to this way in the first place, but I don't see how removing it improves things in any way?
I spotted it because unfortunately whoever added the data in the first place didn't sanity check it - way/1046339418/history (and lots of others in that import) are wrong because of an off by one error in the source data. I'd have expected the importer to have spotted it when they did their edit, and I'd have expect you to have spotted it here too!
Best Regards,
Andy

I'm guessing that node/9824059674 should be "Warehouse" not "Warehosue"?

Also a couple of bits on Bass Rec

You can use JOSM's validator to check that any multipolygon relations are still valid - run JOSM, download object, click "validate" at bottm right. You do not need to edit in JOSM to do that.

Currently as of this changeset there is a gap in the SADR relation at relation/5441968#map=13/27.6523/-8.7376 .

I've just had a quick look, and a little over 6000 of your other changesets also use wikipedia as a source. Is that something that you can undo yourself, or would you like some help doing that?

Great, thanks! https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=2374237 !
There's still a gap in https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=14635746 (entirely unrelated to your edit, I think - and I didn't know that that was even a thing until spotting it in this changeset).

Merhaba Mirzoyev,
Yalnızca "Z" ve "zz"den daha iyi değişiklik kümesi yorumları kullanabilseydiniz, diğer haritacılar için gerçekten yararlı olurdu.
Saygılarımla,
Andy

Hello Mirzoyev,
It would be really helpful to other mappers if you could use better changeset comments than just "Z" and "zz".
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I've removed a couple of bits around Stackpole from the Wales Coast path super-relation relation/1820890 . As you can see, the Pembrokeshire Coast path relation/77964 is already part of the Wales Coast Path; no need to add it again. I've also filled in a gap in the Stackpole Wildlife Walk relation/14205035 assuming it follows the same route.
Let me know if you've got any questions,
Best Regards,
Andy

@Jan Olieslagers
AS I previously said on changeset/88515532 , "http://www.ukairfieldguide.net ... is heavily dependent on Google and therefore can't be used in OSM"
You must not use it as a source for OpenStreetMap, or suggest that other mappers use it as a source.

Hello,
Unless there's been a closure or a diversion, I presume that the gap in relation/2374237#map=19/50.61217/-4.77978 should presumably be part of the local South West Coast Path relation there?
Also, presumably the bit of path in grey at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#19/50.61238/-4.77994 should actually be a public footpath? (red on that map means public footpath, grey on that map means not).
Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks for updating this (I absolutely don't want to be following an old path over a cliff!) but it looks like you've added the new paths to the wrong relation.
relation/2376086 is the "super relation" - a collection of other relations for the South West Coast Path. It looks (judging by the hole) like the correct relation to add the new bits of path to would be relation/2373766#map=17/50.85710/-4.55422 .
Also, if the legally designated public footpath has moved away from the cliff, then I'd expect way/1035773242 to be more than permissive and have a designation=public_footpath. Maybe that change hasn't happened yet though?
Any question, please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello, and welcome to Openstreetmap!
What does "Minor changes made in this Region" mean?
Best Regards,
Andy

Здравствуйте, Александр, и добро пожаловать в OpenStreetMap. Вы добавили веб-сайт к чему-то, что я давно наметил на карте — это их официальный веб-сайт? Быстрый поиск в Интернете показывает, что, хотя они присутствуют на многих рыболовных сайтах, их собственный основной сайт — это страница в Facebook.
С уважением,
Энди

Hello Aliaksandr, and welcome to OpenStreetMap. You've added a website here to something that I mapped a long time ago - is it their official website? A quick web search suggests that although they have a presence on many fishing sites, their own main site is a facebook page.
Best Regards,
Andy