Hello Ed,
I hope you don't mind me commenting on something that was only your 5th edit almost a year ago!
In this changeset you changed a few "highway=bridleway" in the New Forest to "bicycle=permissive". While it's true that there are permissive cycle routes in the New Forest (see for example https://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/app/uploads/2018/01/New-Forest-Cycle-Routes-Map.pdf from the park authority), bridleways in the New Forest aren't like "public bridleways" elsewhere in that there isn't an automatic right to cycle on them. OSM has the tag "designation=public_bridleway" for "public bridleways", but there are almost none of those in the New Forest. Following advice from Forestry England I've changed the remaining ones in thhis changeset from bicycle=permissive to bicycle=no.
If you've got any questions by all means please ask, but don't worry - I'm not asking you to do anything, just letting your know for information.
Best Regards,
Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)

OSM's Data Working Group had a report that a number of bridleways in the New Forest had "bicycle=permissive" set on them in error. What seems to have happened is that someone assumed that they are actually public bridleways ("designation=public_bridleway" in OSM, where a cyclist would have legal rights) rather than merely "highway=bridleway" - something designed for use by horses.
There are almost no "designation=public_bridleway" in the New Forest, but here are some routes where foot and horse traffic has legal rights, and some permissive cycling routes..

Hello,
I wonder if you had any idea - if this bit of NCN13 relation/9765637#map=17/52.07895/0.72564 runs down way/120452353 does that mean it doesn't run down the parallel road to the north?
Best Regards,
Andy

Γεια σου G626,
Andy από την Ομάδα Εργασίας Δεδομένων του OSM εδώ. Εκτός από την ερώτηση για το A26, έχετε διαγράψει πάρα πολλούς τρόπους και σχέσεις σε αυτήν την αλλαγή. Ίσως αυτό έγινε κατά λάθος; Αν ναι, μπορούμε να αναιρέσουμε αυτήν την αλλαγή.
Επίσης, χρησιμοποιήστε μια καλύτερη περιγραφή κάθε φορά που κάνετε μια αλλαγή στο OpenStreetMap και όχι απλώς "ενημέρωση".
Τις καλύτερες ευχές,
Άντι

Hello G626,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. In addition to the question about the A26, you've deleted an awful lot of ways and relations in this change. Perhaps that was by mistake? If so, we can undo this change.
Also, please do use a better description whenever you make a change to OpenStreetMap rather than just "update".
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello JRClements and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I'm not sure exactly what happened, but a gap appeared in the South West Coast Path here around relation/2375987#map=19/50.36111/-4.30047 . I've filled it in based on the Bing imagery - hope that's OK.
Andy questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy

Here's the net change (in number of pieces in postgres) after this:

Change in relation components for NCN1_R3 9579
3c3
< 105
---
> 122
relation/9579
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=9579

Thanks - re the gates as lines, any suggestion about how to render them better than https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=21&lat=53.2683976&lon=-1.6100976 would be gratefully received!

Hi Dudley,
I know it was 8 years ago, but just on the off change, any idea what "stile=g" might be on node/2164688539 might be?
Cheers,
Andy

ome of these outliers (all surveyed!) are a bit odd - see e.g. the one on 66 at relation/17883#map=14/53.9548/-1.0846 .
There's also a discrepancy between "sign has brackets" and "sign should have brackets", but that isn't even surveyed yet.

Hello,
It's ages since I've been there, but I always assumed that routeway 4 went round the north of the wall rather than down to the Coach Road and up.
Currently there's an extra spur: relation/1701381#map=19/53.05652/-1.37102 . If the route is signed to the south now, I guess that the northern bit can be removed from the route.
Cheers,
Andy

Just for information - you'ev added back some tags to way/990518388 , but that won't actually mean anything because it's part of relation/13297971 . Anything that processes it with osm2pgsql will use the tags on the relation (which are the same)

Thanks - I believe most or all the personal names are redacted now. I've left e.g. way/927888428 ("AL SINDICATO AGRARIO DE LA COMUNIDAD KALLUTACA").

Hello,
What is the source for the names used here?
Best Regards,
Andy

What was the source of this data?

See also https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/387#issuecomment-1015492327 .

Hi Joost,
I'm separately dealing with a DWG ticket to remove the personal information from some of these.
Can you let me know when you've finished your changes so that I can revert and if necessary redact the personal information?
Just commenting here will be fine - I'll see the email.
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

Hello AlexChebs and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I hope you don't mind me asking, but - can you please explain what your source for your additions is?
The reason that I mention it is that in the past there has been "odd editing activity" of the place nodes here from editors based overseas. If you're familiar with the local area, then great - we can ask you the next time there are dubious additions here!
Any other questions - please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, from OSM's Data Working Group

Hello Korbier and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Can you please explain what your source for your additions is? I’m sure that the names that you have added in this changeset are not visible on Bing aerial imagery.
Best Regards,
Andy

There are around 9 top-level NCN1s in the UK. Some are superroutes, most (like this one) are not. Many (like this one) have sub-relations. A reorganisation would likely be beneficial.

The gaps I've filled in are mostly just "obvious gaps" where the gap had already been added to e.g. EV12 (which is contiguous with a lot of this NCN1). I haven't added amy large sections unlikely to be part of NCN1 any more since https://www.sustrans.org.uk/about-us/paths-for-everyone/ happened - though I suspect that many parts of relation/9579 may need to be removed per the fixme tag on it.