Dear asnghpi - Please be more careful about tagging roads as motor_vehicle=no
This is a ford and maybe your driver did not want to attempt it, but I rode through it yesterday on a motorbike ... so it does have vehicular access.
In the summer when its dry, your changes will prevent routing engines from using it permanently. I have reverted and drawn a riverbank so you can visually see what the hazard might be.
Russ

Thanks Andy, for fixing - I know your watching out for these ... seem to recall it was a bit "complicated" in that area.
Rgds, Russ

If Way: 356982425 has been changed from a track to a forestry service road...
a. why have only some roads in the forest been changed, and,
b. as these roads typically have gravel surfaces, any reason why this has not been added
c. why has the tiny section between the bridge and the main road been left as a track (public access maybe?)

And as it was me that added the disused amenity tag, I would have only done so if I was 100% sure.
So, yes - disused.

I remember stopping at it to note the foundry that cast the box (Lion Foundry !!). It was on a navigation challenge before you wonder.
A recent grainy image taken by "someone else" indicates the box is now probably decomissioned.

I have removed it.

Because the sign on the Hotel did not have the word "black" - of course it may have changed by now.

And just noticed its Llanvair, not Llanfair. Also corrected.

Have changed name of village back to a "c" from a "g". Both the road signs (which I passed yesterday) and Wikidata use a "c" in the name, so have to assume this the correct version, and not sure why it was changed.

Human error I guess, Tia Cafe was added by Maps.me user as a node.
But when I convert nodes to buildings and they become ways & the origin of way gets transfered to me. Guess thats the way OSM works.
Corrected now.

Cheers Clive, I have adjusted to make sense. Thanks for the reply, Best, Russ.

Confused about this addition/fixme relating to Way: 103363796 ..
Is it really a boardwalk over the fields? .. seems a long way if so, and the aerials dont support it.
And whats a "dummy relation" ?.. if its a genuine path, which old maps seem to support, leave as a highway=path.
Would like to close the fixme, but a bit confused as what is meant.
Cheers.

Presume Heol Hawen is not a bridge for its entire length - have corrected.

Thank you - I see one of the Facebook team added the residential roads right on top of my lake a few years later - wonder my they didnt delete it then ?
Now if you can fix all the residential roads the Facebook team added in the rice paddies, that would be really helpful.

Rather than a single node, this is a large weir, arguably a dam. If it was mapped incorrectly, you should have least added some more detail, such as the fact it is a way, and has a pedestrian bridge over it. I have now added this.

No worries, tided up now.

It was Way: 168700561 ... which I see you have looked at recently. Basically your GPS track (the Wye valley walk) ran through the fields and hedgerows about 100 mts north of the old railway track. I have deleted your "path" but moved the relation to the correct route so as to keep your route continuous.
I guess what Im asking is that where a poor GPS trace exists, its not really right to add a highway tag to the trace, or guessed trace, where the correct way already exists on the map.
One can argue a poor trace is better than nothing, but lets not have two footpaths on the map, when clearly only one exists. Does that make sense ?
Cheers, Russ.

Hi Mauls, with the greatest of respect, is it fair to draw a new public footpath some 100 mts off where it should be just because your GPS gave an erroneous reading - Im guessing you didnt walk across some chaps tennis court, and you did follow the route of the old railway in this section.
In which case, then can you not edit your walk to follow exsisting ways, rather than creating new ones? I have moved your line and kept the WVW relationships where its obvious but wud urge you to revise the rest. Rgds, Russ.

Have sent an email to talk-gb asking for guidance and consolidation of the pages... lets see what happens.

Rights of Way can be a complex issue, and to state it can be either a Public FP, or BOAT is a vast oversimplification. There are many other "categories"... one being for which many of us older chaps refer to, as an Unclassified County Road (UCR) ... a route that is maintainable at Public Expense, which usually infers a public right, although not always (as in the case of where TRO's have been implemented). These can verified by either checking the local Council definitive map, or viewing the National Street Gazetteer.
As far as tagging is concerned, I wish OSM had adopted the word UCR, or even ORPA which is something the OS invented... it does make far more sense.
But in choosing to be consistent, another wiki page (osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging) came up with a set of designations I have used for guidance to date.
Perhaps the fault lies within the Wiki which should be addressed, and have the two pages combined into one factual reference.
However, in the meantime, I'm happy to change, but with over 3,500 ways in the UK having the designation=unclassified_highway tag, we need a larger agreement, and an automated change before I will consider it.
While I appreciate your concerns, you should now understand my reasons for tagging in this manner, and await your comment.
Rgds.