Hello,
You've changed the tagging on https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/6859714 to "place=locality;islet". I'd probably just go with one of those, and tag another way around the edge if you need to tag the other as well, as nothing will understand the semicolon in the data. "place=locality" tends to be used on townlands of course, so maybe there needs to be one thing in OSM that carries the "natural" tags (place=islet; natural=wood" and one that carries the admin ones "place=locality; admin_level=10".

For more information on how OSM handles disputed names, see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf .
For an "on the ground" example of the name here, see Mapillary https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.806660105817&lng=46.769146952764&z=17&pKey=3972766682802980&focus=photo&x=0.554055808729109&y=0.6256731748420934&zoom=0.9098417631054552 .

Hello,
Apologies if you're already aware, but if you look at e.g. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/relation/1311341 you'll see a regular pattern - one user (in the case of Spain, often the same user) breaks admin boundaries and then "Garmin-User" comes along within a day or so and fixes them. I have asked in the past whether we needed to try and avoid breakage in the first place, but the fixing user here seemed happy to fix, so we (the DWG) haven't intervened.
In this case you've fixed it first, so thanks for that!
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Hello,
You've changed natural=hill on e.g. node/6387460626/history to natural=peak. That is actually used for something that's "not quite a peak" (see natural=hill?uselang=en-GB ). As https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=hill#projects says, it's shown from a higher zoom level).
Best Regards,
Andy

Still haven't taken a photo of it yet then (per changeset/138109479 )?

Hello,
way/574194017/history etc are surely "Miriam" not "Mirian" presumably?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
way/574194017/history is surely "Miriam" not "Mirian" presumably?
Best Regards,
Andy

One more thing - surely the logical place for historical railway information is https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/#map=18/53.90289/-1.32204&layers=O&date=1962-12-10&daterange=1923-01-01,2023-12-31 , but there seems to be nothing there.

> A single bridge can have multiple ways across it
It can, but this one does not. There is no railway. There has not been a railway here since the 1960s. A tag such as "railway=abandoned" makes sense here because it informs path users in the present day what sort of path they're likely to encounter.
You've re-added "ref=CFH1" here; presumably that is somehow related to the former railway?

In this changeset or a previous one you had created a duplicate railway bridge at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1zKl . There really is only one bridge, and it now has a cycleway running on it. Please don't add duplicate historical railways (and especially not "in the wrong place" as you did here).

Also ts0008a

Hello,
Following on from comments here, and on changeset/140601329 changeset/139977200 and changeset/140499434 , I'd strongly recommend raising this on the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/ .
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

I'm guessing that way/1149599738 et al are at best service roads here?

Hello,
I don't think that way/222295786 is "foot=no". I walked down here on 6th August (unfortunately I haven't updated OSM with it yet). There's actually a pavement (sidewalk) on the southern bit of Farnham Lane that continues down the A road past the new housing estate, and the bit of Boroughbridge Road east of Farnham lane has a verge on the north. I didn't walk that bit though so I'm not sure how far that goes.
However, unless there's explicit signage it's still legal to walk on a road in the UK even if there's no pavement or verge.
Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
I'm guessing that way/1202778842 is the courtyard? If so, it shouldn't have a "building=yes" tag on it, and the tags on the relation relation/16250401 will be used.
Cheers,
Andy

I thin that iD wants to change "access=public" to "access=yes". Actually, the bigger issue here (which predates your edits) is whether way/212292004 allows bicycle and horse access or just foot. If it is just foot (and I'm guessing that it might be because https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#17/54.14227/-1.51437/O/P suggests that there's an unmapped "public footpath" down here) then "highway=footway" is probably the better tag for way/212292004. If it does allow bicycle or horse access, then it's probably best to add explicit "bicycle" and "horse" tags too.
Cheers,
Andy
PS: Any other questions just ask.

Excellent - has way/835271466 reopened?
Actually it's probably been open a while now since they'd started work on it a couple of years ago.

and Dringhouses

from survey 15/08/2023, ts0124b