Hello,
I think that this change might have made a few relations invalid because they fell out of a rendering database last night - they crossed over each other so that they were no longer valid polygons.
I fixed them in changeset/164502548 and added a new node to retain the geometry of the nature reserve.
Cheers,
Andy

What actually is that area? As I mentioned, for example way/1373870321 ? It looks barely visible on Bing or ESRI imagery.

Hello, I think that this change might have caused a problem with a few relations. I've mentioned it on the forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/relation-breakage-on-the-coastline-northeast-of-swords/128284 .
To be clear, this absolutely isn't your fault - the problem is (a) the complicated way that relations are mapped here and (b) the way that the OSM editors don't notice that relations now have problems.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello 5155 and welcome to OSM,
What was the source of for example way/1373870321 ? It looks barely visible on Bing or ESRI imagery.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Please join the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/please-update-and-include-somalia-s-newest-state-in-the-map/128229 to discuss the relation deleted here.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend,
On behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

I think that this might have accidentally created a gap in the Norfolk AONB relation/9471593 - I've rejoined it again.

Hello,
Please contact the DWG by email at [email protected] with a subject line of "[Ticket#2023050810000254] changeset/164364458" so that we can add you to the ongoing discussion about this.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Despite those maps being "© Crown Copyright and database right 2024" I believe that I've seen similar data released under OGL (and hence licence-compatible).
I'm a bit confused by what I see at both "Natural England - Open Access maps" and "CROW Section 4 Conclusive Maps" linked from there - locally to me only some of what I thought was "common land" is listed as such, but there's extra sections of "access land" that I wasn't expecting!
Nothing listed in the Woolton area though.

Not sure what the letting policy is; I'm guessing it's relatively short term and therefore would benefit from some sort of tourism tag; I local might want to add that.

To contact the DWG about this edit, please email [email protected] with a subject line of "[Ticket#2025032810000494] Clifton Lane".
Note that "primary" was backed up by both OS OpenData StreetView (from 2016) and also last year's OS OpenMap Local, both of which are licence-compatible with OSM.
Apparently some listed speed limit was also wrong, but as https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/21kx shows no current speed limit there, I've left as is.

Editing CanVec-inspired relations is always a challenge - I mean, just look at relation/1100815 :)
It looks like iD didn't flag anything up here (which is not entirely a surprise).
One thing that you may be able to do immediately after the edit is to check affected relations with JOSM's validator - I wrote @SomeoneElse/diary/406398 a few days ago in another context, but it should work here too.
There's also the more general check that was mentioned above - https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-63.76396&lat=44.62007&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.95&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways . That won't show issues immediately but it will check everything, and is also useful to do.
As for the best way to make CanVec relations "editable by humans", that's probably a question for https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/ca/95 . Where I've encountered similar things (not in Canada) I've tried to isolate bite-sized pieces of natural=wood from the monster relation and attack it that way.
That will also allow you to update OSM to match changes since CanVec was imported at osm.org/#map=20/44.6587018/-63.8351248 , that's 14 years ago. A glance at the underlying imagery suggests that it's all either more or fewer trees, and there isn't a great correlation between "natural=wood" in OSM and "lots of trees in imagery" - there's some, but not much.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks for fixing this. For info, there is still an issue with some of the other relations here. Since at least 4 people are fixing things, I've posted in the Irish forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/coastline-and-relation-breakage-in-killiney-south-of-dublin/128102 suggesting that people work together there.
I mention this not in any expectation of you fixing anything else, just purely for interest :)

For completeness, there is still an issue here. Since at least 4 people are fixing things, I've posted in the Irish forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/coastline-and-relation-breakage-in-killiney-south-of-dublin/128102 suggesting that people work together there.

For completeness, there is still an issue here. Since at least 4 people are fixing things, I've posted in the Irish forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/coastline-and-relation-breakage-in-killiney-south-of-dublin/128102 suggesting that people work together there.

I think that the merge of the ways to make way/323221895/history makde a couple of townlands invalid polygons; I split it again in changeset/164282607 .
To be clear it might not have been this changeset; this was just the most recent one that edited the road :)

I'm not familiar with this area - I'm hoping that you were!
I'm always puzzled by "what is officially a common and what isn't". In some case it's obviously signed as such on the ground (and you might have get some bylaws posted - one near me has that). Part of another one near me seems to be used as farmland currently - but maybe that was never part of, but only adjacent to, the "common" part? I'm not sure how you'd tell...

Hello,
What was "invalid" that led to the change here? The comment just says "Fixed an invalid way." which does not really explain anything.
Best Regards,
Andy

Just wondered - how do you check that this isn't dedicated as a common?

Hello MPFG,
It'd be great if the changeset comment here was a bit more descriptive, such as "added buildings to a suspiciously empty area in the east of Glasgow"
Best Regards,
Andy

The "one vs four" problem was caused indirectly by the mapping of the former units as "buildings" (possibly by me!). This isn't really correct; there's actually really only one building on each side, and the interior partitions can be moved and removed easily.