Hello,
I wonder if you could help? Something looks a bit wrong at way/712554192/history#map=19/55.29594/-1.56911 - there's a duplicate path way/587486200 in addition to the road way/706462585#map=16/55.2928/-1.5708 . The imagery suggests that there is only one thing here - the road - and the Northumberland Coast Path relation/11508166 runs along it.
Presumably these duplicate "paths" should be deleted?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Do you know how way/128609899 comments to other roads at the east, and whether cycling on the highway=pedestrial here is allowed? I noticed some gaps in relation/62824 , which in turn led me to this.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I'm not sure what happened here or how it ws possible, but somehow way/523737555 got added to the AONB relation twice - once with a role, once without. I've removed it in changeset/116423272 .
Cheers,
Andy

survey 3/1/2022, tr8456b and tr8457a

There were 3 breakages in EV12, and at the same place also breakages in NCN1 and Yorkshire Wolds Cycle Route. I changed WoR to not go round 2 sides of a triangle.

To be fair, the Highway Code's pretty clear about not cycling on the pavement :)

The "OSM default" for highway=footway is "whatever the law is" locally (and that often varies at a lower level than a country). Sometimes it's useful to add "bicycle=yes" (where it really is allowed) or "bicycle-no" (you you would otherwise think it might be allowed - I suspect way/886555770 is one of those).
Generally speaking, it's not needed. For example, in central Birmingham (see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1f4N ) 149 of 3.4k "highway=footway" ways have "bicycle" tags.

if a router thinks you can cycle on a footway in the UK with no bicycle tag it is broken and needs to he fixed.

(no reply, but), the CKB article does seem to be a bit less "encyclopaedic" than the AR one.

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Looking at e.g. way/1019867805/history I don't think that there's any need to tag "bicycle=no" or "bicycle=dismount" on something that's tagged as "highway=footway; footway=sidewalk"; it's implicit (because it's a footway) that you're not allowed to cycle there unless there's an explicit tag such as bicycle=yes.
There normal use of "bicycle=dismount" is, as osm.wiki/Bicycle says, on short sections of signposted cycle routes.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks - I've removed these paths from the Bradford Millennium Way. The path now goes to the north:

relation/1573819#map=17/53.86051/-1.96326

Hello,
I've extended way/268443105 back to it's previous length and re-added it to the two administrative areas relation/3598544/history and relation/3598573/history , so they're now the same size and shape as they were before.
Thanks,
Andy

Hola rodolfovargas,
¿Cuál fue la fuente de los nombres personales asociados con algunos de los datos en este conjunto de cambios? Presumiblemente no era "tiles.openaerialmap.org".
Consulte osm.wiki/ES:Limitaciones_en_el_mapeo_de_informaci%C3%B3n_privada sobre qué es apropiado mapear y qué no.
Atentamente,
Andy Townsend, en representación del Grupo de Trabajo de Datos de OSM.

Hello rodolfovargas,
What was the source of the personal names associated with some of the data in this changeset? It presumably wasn't "tiles.openaerialmap.org".
Please see osm.wiki/ES:Limitaciones_en_el_mapeo_de_informaci%C3%B3n_privada about what it is appropriate to map and what it is not.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
Whereabouts did you notice the odd border?
Was it near node/20987795 , which for some reason is part of a coastline way?
Best Regards,
Andy

Near Fylingdales, not near Filey

https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/36966069 shows who changed what and when. My only edit is this one which just reverts to the previous value from Esperanto

You've said "your group kept restoring option 0) name in English", but for the avoidance of doubt, this is _not_ what this changeset did - it attempted to revert all changes in the listed changesets. 10 were successful; 20 had been edited by other mappers already. See https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/node/305640005 for an example of that.

Should be "... in the South East" of course.

Hello,
You've added way/1017685511 here. What was the source of this edit? It's certainly not visible on Bing aerial imagery.
Best Regards
Andy