This is also going to absolutely wreck cycle routing. Saying that the Grand Union towpath (which is a muddy mess most of the time) is built to highway=cycleway standards, rather than highway=footway, will lead to apps directing people along an entirely unsuitable path.

I have asked DWG to revert this and other changesets given that mrpacmanmap appears unwilling or unable to read the comments left on his edits.

This appears to re-add into the NCN 54 relation a section that has been removed from the NCN by Sustrans. Could you clarify why you have done this?

This is absolutely disastrous. You have overwritten large amounts of correct information. Bike access on most towpaths is permissive - by permission of the Canal & River Trust. It is not by right and it is not "designated".

(Also - the Coventry Canal as part of the BCN? Really?!)

This is not a signposted cycle route and does not belong in OSM.

Aaaaargh.

Towpaths are _not_ necessarily bike routes. Significant parts of the route you have included here are not suitable for cycling - the notion of anyone cycling along the towpath at Hawford would be funny if it wasn't actively dangerous. On some sections it's expressly forbidden.

By tagging these using the standard meant for signposted, promoted, reviewed cycle routes, you are causing bike routers to send people along completely unsuitable paths.

I am probably going to have to remove these in bulk. _Please_ consult the community before making massive changes to existing practice like this.

Hello,

You've changed way/1221176941 from railway=dismantled (trackbed doesn't exist) to railway=abandoned (trackbed exists).

The trackbed clearly doesn't exist because it's over a river and the bridge has been removed.

Similarly way/470454741 .

I have changed these two back to railway=dismantled but could I suggest you review your other changes in case this has happened elsewhere?

Including me for keeping big changeset open

Hi - this change is incorrect. The Montgomery Canal is not open to boats throughout this entire length.

Hi - when you're making these changes, could you ensure you retain the ref= tag on the relation? Thank you.

Whooops. Sorry, didn't realise I still had a changeset open.

Yep, but they shouldn't. 75 is the ref and doesn't need to be duplicated in the name tag; a rural A-road is just tagged "ref=A3400" and not "name=A3400 road". There's been quite a lot of discussion of this on the various mailing lists, community.osm.org, Nominatim issue tracker etc. and it utterly fouls up any attempt to do anything with the data.

Hi! I think you accidentally broke the continuity of the NCN 403 cycle route relation in this edit. I've repaired it but you might want to keep an eye out for route relations in future when merging ways.

cheers
Richard

Sadly would be typical - councils often seem to think of cycle routes as a bauble to soak up some capital funding rather than something that needs ongoing revenue funding for maintenance/upgrades!

Crap, forgot to close one before starting the next. Sorry for big bbox.

That's great, thank you. The railway is abandoned but the bridge is still there :)

Yes, I usually do (as you can see by looking at my changesets), but on this one I forgot to close the earlier edits. Mea culpa.

Hello - you've changed a road into a track in this edit. I'm guessing you didn't mean to do that!

Hi! Could you tell me why the bridge tags have been removed here?

Hi! I think you mistakenly changed US Bicycle Route System route 90 to be USBRS route 10 in this edit. I've changed it back.

St Davids has been tagged as a city in OSM for 15+ years. It is of course possible you are uniquely clever and have found something that thousands of OSM editors in the UK have hitherto missed! But even then you should aim to work with the community consensus rather than overruling it. I'm reverting it and would suggest you discuss on the talk-gb@ mailing list first if you want to make major changes like this.