> I fixed it

I don't think that you did. Deleting some crossings in the centre of Wheathampstead suggests osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=51.81562%2C-0.29308%3B51.81537%2C-0.29267 as a preferred route by foot, rather than via node/8963157060 .

The reason why highway=path is less used in England and Wales is partly historical and partly that an access tag is needed here to distiguish foot=yes from =permissive etc.
highway=path can't have both foot=designated (saying it is really a footpath not a cycleway) and foot=permissive or =yes (for the legal access rights).
This isn't a problem where there are sensible access rules like Sweden or Scotland, but it is in England and Wales.

Er, I don't think that an attempt to explain really comes under the heading of "patronising twattery". I get that you don't like being told that you're wrong, but that's no reason to fling insults around.

oops - you've deleted a weather buoy in the Atlantic!

Hello BorekSigar,
Just checking - is there really no access to the north into Waye Avenue Park any more? You can see the gap in a section of London LOOP at relation/3685849#map=16/51.4766/-0.4128 . A few days ago it was connected - https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gSC .
Best Regards,
Andy

Also includes water between Commondale and Guisborough from OS OpenData StreetView and survey

@BCNorwich Well I'd hope that the stream of messages might suggest that fictional edits are not OK. Right now I don't want to block the user permanently because I'd like to give them the chance to map things that actually exist rather than continue to make fictional changes.

Thanks for sorting it out!

Hello Nathan,
What does ??? mean?
Best Regards,
Andy

For a bit more info, with a DWG hat on I recently had to revert some Osmose changesets because they had corrupted some names in a language that it did not understand (see changeset/117752030 and follow-up blocks and reverts for more details).

Hello,
I just spotted this because it covered an area I'm in. What does "Fixed with Osmose" mean? What actual changes did you make here and how did you verify that they were valid?
Best Regards,
Andy

One question about way/833213512#map=18/52.14932/-0.03204 though (since you were there recently) - the southern bit doesn't exist on imagery, but it previously included a section north of node/4463958420 where something is visible on imagery - does that exist, and if so what is it? https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gPN shows ways in the area a couple of months ago, https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gPO just that one way.

Thanks. For Vespucci issues it might be worth mentioning it at https://github.com/MarcusWolschon/osmeditor4android/issues - maybe the way that you're using it hasn't been anticipated? I've not seen it myself since I always upload directly from Vespucci.
With Josm I try and do new things in new data layers (and deleting data layers when I've finished with them) - that should work around any issues there.

Hello,
You've added a bollard in the middle of a T junction at node/25340253 . This seems a pretty unlikely location - did you perhaps want to put it on the footpath to the west?
Let me know if you need any help.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello ljc36,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 4 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on node/368152241 here. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello Mike Depa,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 10 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on node/1583802366 here. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello JB82,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 10 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on node/1562109682 here. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,
I just happened to notice that this changeset seems to have deleted way/835498714/history (which isn't very near Chipping Norton) but left the nodes that formed part of it. I wonder if something went a bit wrong?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Can you explain what you mean by "seen this" here?
If you can't explain we'll need to undo this and similar changes.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,

Whilst everyone can understand your revulsion at the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the ongoing humanitarian crisis there, vandalism of OpenStreetMap in Moscow is extremely unlike to influence the regime in the Kremlin.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM’s Data Working Group