Thanks!

For info, this seems to have accidentally added a large fence to an area of heathland. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/1-member-multipolygons/101507/84 when I happened to spot it in response to a question about something else.

Agreed - some of these changes really do need to be discussed

Hello,
I wonder if you know which way the NCN66 cycle route goes across the gap at relation/17883#map=18/53.78587/-0.36737 ?
Cheers,
Andy

Thanks for mapping these, but assuming that they are actually square, you can square up these irregular quadrilaterals by pressing "q" in most editors.

For info I've commented on changeset/131478650 about the merging and the currently silly elevant value.

You seem to have merged the peak https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/321811440 and the trig point https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/5317253878 here in error . It's a while since I've been there, but I don't remember the trig point being right at the very top, but offset to one side. The previous elevation values were 931 and 931.2, which would make sense. The current elevation of "931;931.2" obviously does not.

Thanks - is the accountant upstairs or something?

Actually - not this one (I was thinking of one to the north), but I'm sure that it's not "shop=vacant".

Hello, is https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/961287358 still a clothes shop? I'm guessing not...

Hello, I'm guessing that shop=art was left over here? See https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/204019352 . I've removed it, hope this is OK!

OK - thanks!
I'll update my "check list" https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/database_qa_scripts/blob/main/osm_ldp3#L119 based on the current contents of the superroute relation/1992599 .
I'm pretty sure that there is more work to do around Hull - relation/2452530 is the new route of NCN1 (and is incomplete) and the bit that goes to Hull and back at relation/15975674#map=12/53.7664/-0.4168 is incorrect, though those are part of other routes. chillly, who is local to Hull and the author of relation/2452530 , may be able to advise further.

I agree with Kai here - it doesn't make sense to remove information like this without discussion with other mappers. After that discussion it's possible that better suggestions will emerge, but "tagfiddling" like this doesn't improve the quality of OSM data one iota.
- Andy (writing, for the avoidance of doubt, in a personal capacity)

Hello,
I'm guessing that the guideposts still part of relation/9579 should also be moved to whatever relation the ways have now moved to?

Hello and welcome to OSM!
For info, another mapper has deleted the "Hertfordshire" that was added here. However, when I did an overpass search https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1xAC it found both of the remaining ones (the historic county and the current administrative area with that name.
Any questions please don't hesitate to ask....

In addition, we are aware (see https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1086252957 ) that one person has been creating "sock-puppet" accounts to try and add this back as a "path". If they try this again (without producing pictures to back up their change) their edit will be reverted.

Andy from the DWG here again. We've just heard from the National Trust again. Among other things they have said "The path is really just a short cut through steep and loose mountain habitat" and "blocking the path was a matter of disguising the route by rearranging stone and scree) it is not a genuine route". I've therefore removed "highway=path" and left "disused:highway=path". See changeset/138626839 . Strictly speaking, as noted previously, it's in access land and so is "foot=yes". If anyone wants to improve the tagging of these things generally in OSM, please join the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-highway-scramble/2496 . If anyone believes that the NT description as "not really a path" is incorrect please take photographs - the ones that I have seen suggest an iffy scree slope (it's some years since I've been past either end in person).

@Mateusz lots of people have reverted many of these already. A background process (which wrote changeset/138537896 a day ago) is going through this user's changes and reverting them, but it hasn't found much to do recently because people like @NorthCrab have already reverted the changes (for which many thanks).

Actually, according to the website displayed above the serving hatches, it is the same chain.

Should node/252673627/history perhaps be disused:highway=bus_stop if buses no longer stop there?