Thanks - they have both reappeared:

10713a10714
> -5986877 | Sleveen East
10725a10727
> -5986752 | Lackaduff
55670c55672
< (55667 rows)
---
> (55669 rows)

Hello - a quick question about the cycle route at relation/4026281#map=18/51.308127/-0.614454 - do you know how it gets from the south bank to the north? There's a gap currently.
Best Regards,
Andy

Oops - I think that the merging of two bits of bridge into way/176962752 has broken a couple of relations - see for example relation/5986877#map=19/51.905440/-8.962245 . I've no idea if this was deliberately merged or just "something that Vespucci did". The "sticky-out bit" means that it is no longer a valid polygon. Would you like to fix that or would you rather that I did?
Best Regards,
Andy

Irrespective of local laws, wuld some sort of "hazard" tag make sense?
I think that there was some sort of discussion of "iffy" crossings on https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/do-we-really-need-railway-tram-crossing-resp-tram-level-crossing/118987 , but I might be wrong.

To be honest (and with reference to changeset/163383605 ) I suspect a bit of discussion would have helped here.
I'm confused by noexit=yes on node/8984377004/history . Presumably this is an unofficial (and hazardous?) pedestrian crossing?
I'd suggest that it needs discussion about how best to tag it.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello EditWatcher,
You've deleted a bunch of tags on way/731989519 including "oneway=no". Does that mean that it _is_ oneway, or something else?
Best Regards,
Andy

I think the trick with iD is to always search for the relation number rather than guessing based on the name, because townlands/EDs/whatever can all have similar names...

Hello,
I'm guessing that way/1246468471/history might have been a Boots Opticians once, but is now a pet shop?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks - done in changeset/163566809

Thanks - done in changeset/163565825

For info - I removed a couple of extra bits from relation/6153872 so that it's now just one ring.

Hello,
Was way/371619998 removed from relation/5518440 deliberately?
Previously that relation was https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/20hZ , but now it's just two sides of a triangle.
Best Regards,
Andy

Oops - I think that the original A148 he was part of the "outer" of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and there's now a gap in it: relation/9471593#map=14/52.78094/0.45851 .
Are you OK to add that back or would you like me to?

Also ts1708b

Hello,
It is clear (see https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/39972557 ) that you disagree with other mappers about road classifications here. Can you explain where you have discussed it with them and persuaded them that your point of view is correct?
Best Regards,
Andy

@Yog%20Sot I'm only involved because the DWG received complaints about the way that you rode roughshod over other mappers and just reverted their work, despite it largely following community agreed guidelines.
We have given you lots of opportunity to try and find a consensus, and at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-separated-footways-or-cycleways-along-central-street-as-one-tagged-line-versus-mutiple-lines/126766/73 people have been very indulging of you and have tried to help you.
OpenStreetMap is a shared community project - to make progress you need to persuade people of your point of view, not keep repeating that they are all wrong.
You are really not helping us to help you.

Thanks - I was worried that my rendering of "a building in the middle of the North Sea" was wrong!

A quick question - are things like way/635829122 above the sea level or below it? I'm guessing the latter?

DO NOT DO ANY MORE REVERTS.
You will be blocked from the OSM API if you do.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of the OSM Data Working Group.

@Yog Sot, based on the comments above, can you explain why this was "invalid" and why you reverted it?