Hello,
Creating the crossing left a gap in the "Bristol_Triangular_City_Walk" (relation/2365565). I've filled that in in changeset/180579846 , but you may want to review the route so that it uses the pavement not the road itself: relation/2365565#map=19/51.451984/-2.585362 .

Hello,
relation/11017#map=19/56.735810/-3.770417 is a tiny piece of NCN7 left on the military road - is that deliberate?
It might be useful to use http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=11017 to look at NCN7 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Andy from te Data Working Group here. Thanks for tidying up here, but just so that you are aware, there's still quite a bit of "misaligned hedges" etc.
As an example, if you open the editor at osm.org/#map=20/53.1742671/-4.3395658 and show the OSMUK cadastral parcels, you can see that neither the hedge nor the field boundary are especially well aligned here.
Best Regards,
Andy

I also stuck "drinking_water=yes" on the tap based on the existing name.
Also added a fixme because https://www.anniesboathouse.co.uk/ says it has changed hands.

I've also added it to the NCN753 relation, based on the name that you've used - you can see that at relation/2293737#map=17/55.647546/-4.813240 . Does this new route replace the old one through town or is it in addition to it?

I've also added it to the NCN753 relation, based on the name that you've used - you can see that at relation/2293737#map=17/55.647546/-4.813240 . Does this new route replace the old one through town or is it in addition to it?

Hello,
I've filled in a gap in the Ayrshire Coastal Path at relation/1756394#map=19/55.647923/-4.814366 - it seems logical that this is where it goes.
Best Regards,
Andy

See https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-February/030061.html , and changeset/126152086

Hello,
Not sure if it was this edit or not, but it looks like relations to NCN2 here fell foul of some of the bugs in iD where you can't see which relation you're adding to (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/id-visibility-of-relations/138374/2 ). The eastbound route was added to the superrelation relation/1950688 rather than the local section relation/13725878 . I've filled in the gap.
Cheers,
Andy

Oops - it looks like this introduced a gap in the Lea Valley Walk relation. It added a new bit of footpath that wasn't part of the relation. I've filled it in in changeset/177093285 .
Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
Just for info (and I know it can be a pain when you're typing in values on your phone) - "accommodation" is spelt with 2 "m"s...
Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
Adding this created a gap in the Rochdale_Way 2596108. I've filled it in.
Cheers,
Andy

And also way/1461940070/history

And also way/1461940076/history

And also way/1461940073/history

Same applies to way/1461940075/history (also not sure why it is a tunnel, also lots of broken relations)

I don't know that there _isn't_ a TRO on it, but information from 3 years ago likely isn't going to help there.

See even though https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#22/51.70244/-1.27703/H/P for the LA PRoW view. Their PF stops at the gate (as is to be expected).

Hello,
There's now a tiny gap in relation/9058875#map=23/51.49475585/-0.12439015&layers=S .
Cheers,
Andy
For info see also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/id-visibility-of-relations/138374/21 )

Oops - I think that this might have introduced a gap in the Greensand Way. I filled it in in changeset/175276055 .
It's really an iD bug - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/id-visibility-of-relations/138374 .
Cheers,
Andy