Oops - looks like your addition of way/1513376565/history broke NCN56: relation/156406#map=20/53.4025835/-2.9856755 .
Can You fill in the gap?

https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=9476151 and https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=9476151 show a number of "stragglers" near Melrose - I guess that they should not be there any more?

Hello,
This broke a couple of townland relations. I fixed them in changeset/182738663 . If you use the JOSM validator after each edit and tidy up any broken relations, this won't happen :)
Best Regards,
Andy

Burn

Hallo,
Anscheinend wurde durch diese Bearbeitung versehentlich way/770821877 zu relation/7884303/history hinzugefügt. Diese Relation ist eine „Relation von Relationen“ und sollte keine Wege enthalten. Ein solcher Fehler kann jedoch leicht passieren.
Viele Grüße, Andy

Hello,
It looks like this edit accidentally added way/770821877 to relation/7884303/history . That relation is a "relation of relations", and shouldn't have any ways in it. However, it is easy to do it accidentally.
Best Regards, Andy

I suspect that at least you should be following osm.wiki/Automated_edits and possibly also osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines .

Was the mechanism by which "mcom-contributions" submits updates to OSM discussed with the community anywhere?

Thanks!

One other thing:
You've added a kerb node at node/13819691425/history , but there was already a kerb way mapped at way/522699904/history . It would have made sense to add the kerb node where the crossing way intersects with the kerb way, since that is where the kerb is.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I think that this edit has broken "Jubilee_Walkway_City_Loop" (relation/12890344). Have a look at https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=12890344 and you'll see the problem. That had problems beforehand (it was in 3 pieces) but is now worse (it is now in 6).
Please make sure that:
a) You fix these relations where you edited them
b) After future edits, you and the rest of Uber's editors always check for relation breakage with JOSM's validator. You can't rely on iD to tell you about relation breakage.
Best Regards,
Andy

Actually, no: It wasn't an iD edit that caused this but a JOSM one, so iD is blameless here.
There _is_ a validate button in JOSM which would have caught this before upload, but that button wasn't pressed...

Hello,
I think that you might have forgotten to check route connectivity again. :)
If you look at https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=68378 you can see at least one more gap than there was a few days ago.
Also way/1512359940/history seems to be missing "sidewalk=separate" tags.
It's easy to tell when you've edited a relation - just look at your changset (like " 56 (68378), v145 " below).
Best Regards,
Andy

Re "There clearly isn't any track or railway features remaining" there very definitely is - a flat railbed making its way through cuttings and over embankments, with bits of railway detritus around where the bridleway-making wombles haven't tidied it up.
Perhaps you should think about "railway=abandoned" as an attribute of the current "highway" tag? It's purpose is to define what is _currently_ there, not what once was.

Why did you delete relation/15969963/history and re-add way/1421957046#map=19/19.433810/-99.127993 here? What was wrong with the previous one?

Hello,
The DWG has received a complaint about way/1429276134#map=19/19.462473/-99.152047 saying that "this area is not one huge building".

Has node/9392750454/history really been turned from a public bookcase back into a public telephone? It seems unlikely...

Thanks

Thanks. The licence of that github repository (by an individual https://github.com/ghofinka ) is MIT, but what is the licence of the underlying data? The source of that is listed as https://www.nomor.net/_kodepos.php but that's just an ad-filled cesspit. I can't see where that got the data from and under what licence.

Just checking - is way/69417373/history really a kindergarten?