A source for some of this was https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1dho , which I used to see where people (back in the dawn of OSM) joined ways that shouldn't be joined, resulting in the relation going where it shouldn't.

Hello,
I think a merge along the river went wrong here - Graney West and Graney East were no longer valid multipolygons. I've split the river a bit west of the bridge and removed some duplicates: relation/4580960/history#map=20/52.90060/-6.78641 . The JOSM validator should be able to flag where this sort of thing happens by accident.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
You've deleted way/298306425/history here - do you know where the England Coast Path goes to get past the former Steetley site?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Does the hiking trail relation/6135236/history have a name? It seems a bit odd - how is it signposted?
Best Regards,
Andy

I've hidden the odd comments that were here (they'd been left by an OSM account on a number of changesets by different people worldwide).
- Andy
(from OSM's Data Working Group)

I've hidden the odd comments that were here (they'd been left by an OSM account on a number of changesets by different people worldwide).
- Andy
(from OSM's Data Working Group)

Fixed gap in 5272373 Wakefield_Way

Hello,
I've removed the name "shakespears avon way" from way/184130267/history because it's already part of the relation relation/721956
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
A quick question about the Shropshire Way - in Whixall it used to go between a house and a farm via a stile like this: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1d9q but now there's a gap: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1d9r . Do you know if it's been rerouted, and if the stile that was at node/2698217399/history#map=19/52.90612/-2.72277 has been removed?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I've merged relation/413927/history into relation/3853488 as they appeared to be the same thing and that was more complete than this.
Best Regards,
Andy

I've merged the rcnhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3134217 into the icn relation/3134216 since one was a subset of the other. Hope this is OK...

It was added from Bing 3 years ago. The bits near the road I (like way/605701048 ) I added from survey, including leaf_type; the ones further back from the road from Bing imagery. Looking at the imagery that's available now, it might be willowy stuff for biomass power stations. way/619761267 is an example of that (from survey) from not too far away. To be sure, you'd have to go to Sutton on Forest in daylight and see if anything visible from the end of the farm track. way/605701050 looks similar - you might be able to see that from the main road.
Best Regards,
Andy

Привет,
Согласно http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=164352225, здесь вы изменили адрес на way/164352225/history с "40-70". к «41-70».
Было высказано предположение, что это соответствует источникам, которые несовместимы с OpenStreetMap, и не соответствует тому, что наблюдается на земле.
Какой источник вы использовали для этого адреса?
С уважением,
Энди Таунсенд, от имени рабочей группы OSM по данным.

Hello,
According to http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=164352225 , in here you changed the address on way/164352225/history from "40-70" to "41-70".
It has been suggested that this matches sources that are not compatible with OpenStreetMap, and does not match what is observable on the ground.
What source did you use for that address?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

@Lee Carré There's absolutely no point in commenting on large changeset sizes when the editor in question doesn't give the user direct control over opening and closing changesets.

Thanks. Just for info, I've commented on changeset/113527018 as well.

Hello Renas Azad,
Thanks for your reply. How OpenStreetMap handles situations such as these is described in the Disputed Territories policy https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That says "The OpenStreetMap community operates under the “on the ground” principle, recording what is actually currently used in a particular area, giving pre­eminence to data collected in­-situ". This means that we don't think about what territory a place _should_ be part of, but what it actually is part of, and the "name" tag will generally reflect the language used by the majority of people there currently. As can be seen from http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=248436981 , there are names in many other languages here too, and many apps such as OsmAnd will use those names (depending on the language of your phone).
If the majority of people currently here speak Arabic then it would make sense for the "name" tag to be in Arabic. This isn't making any judgement about who should be controlling the area or what language they would be speaking; it is just trying to reflect what the current situation is.
Best Regards,
Andy
(from OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group)

Hello,
Just for info - a think a way merge in here added in accidental spur to the Battlefields Trail - you can see that at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1d6m . I've removed that in changeset/113889760
Best Regards,
Andy

I've also filled in a short gap in Arlescote.
The bit in Cropredy wasn't signed when I was last there, but the site of the battle most definitely is, and cherwell.gov's walk leaflet (no copyright claimed, not obviously OS derived) matches that.

Thanks, but that doesn't make a huge amount of sense - relation/1581577 is just in one piece (there are no alternative routes) and relation/1959386 is itself an alternative to the parts of E9 relation/1254604 in France such as relation/2167510 ?