Hello,
Esri imagery is offset here. You can tell which is correct by looking at OS OpenData StreetView and OS OpenMap Local, and seeing that that is aligned well to Bing, but not Esri.
Best Regards,
Andy

Also water from OS OpenData

Thanks - I've reverted it. Do any others need doing too?

Also a bit of near "Little Sessay, from survey 24/06/2022"

Hello Dee Kaart,
Just wondered - have you any idea if all of the bits of http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=13725970 are correct? It's been like this for ages: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1jDp (and that was split from another, older, relation).
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello ilya_edel84,
You've added nodes such as node/9761679814 here, but it seems to be in the middle of a construction area. What source was used for the housenumbers here? It clearly wasn't "Bavaria (80 cm)"?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello SamVanDyke,
You've added data based on "local knowledge" in the San Francisco bay area, various places around Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Whilst some people do have excellent memories, your use of this as a source does seem to push credibility somewhat. Are there any other sources that you are using?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Ciao giorgio92,
Andy del gruppo di lavoro sui dati di OSM qui. Abbiamo ricevuto reclami su alcuni edifici che hai aggiunto in questo set di modifiche.
Per prima cosa, qual era la fonte dei dati?
In secondo luogo, ci sono una serie di problemi con gli edifici che si sovrappongono ad altre caratteristiche. Ad esempio, way/1059232656 non sembra corrispondere alle immagini e tocca la strada di servizio. Un altro esempio è way/1059232985 - che si sovrappone a una strada residenziale. Assicurati di mappare l'edificio a terra, non sulla linea del tetto: il parallasse potrebbe compensarlo.
Una ricerca osmose come https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=10&lat=45.1941&lon=7.726&item=0000%2C1070&level=1%2C2%2C3&issue_uuid=07b289b0-0a7d-4dcb-3e77-8357cca1942b&username= giorgio92 può aiutarti a trovarli.
Distinti saluti,
Andy

Hello giorgio92,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. We've received complaints about some of the buildings that you have added in this changeset.
First things first, what was the source of the data?
Secondly, there are a number of problems with buildings overlapping other features. As an example, way/1059232656 doesn't seem to match the imagery and touches the service road. Another example is way/1059232985 - that overlaps a residential road. Please make sure that you map the building on the ground, not at the roofline - parallax may offset that.
An osmose search such as https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=10&lat=45.1941&lon=7.726&item=0000%2C1070&level=1%2C2%2C3&issue_uuid=07b289b0-0a7d-4dcb-3e77-8357cca1942b&username=giorgio92 may help you to find these.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
In this changeset you've deleted way/1047595813/history (a separately-mapped sidewalk) in Sudbury. See https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=122809694 . Was that deliberate?
Previously, the St Edmund Way ran along it: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1jCQ , and now there's a gap: relation/358939#map=17/52.03747/0.72995 .
Best Regards,
Andy

One more thing - please don't use "Golf course features" as the description for every changeset. To and explain in a bit more details what you're doing - what you actually edited, what your goal is, what your sources are, etc.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello HammTreetops,
In this changeset you broke the Stour Valley Way and introduced a gap in a footpath. Before it was like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1jCO and after your edit it was like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1jCP . I've filled in the gap (which is clearly visible on the underlying imagery).
Can you help me understand why you introduced this gap here?
Best Regards,
Andy

I've only ever walked this bit and not cycled it. I'm pretty sure that this is the correct west to east route, and suspect that east to west you'd also have to dismount to go straight across at the end of James Street. I don't remember any NCN signage at the crossing (but it was a while ago).

Hello, and thanks for updating "access=private" here.
My recollection (I used to live not far away) is that it's probably more of a residential road than an unclassified road, but "access=private" should hopefully make it clear that there is no general access here.
One question - currently bicycle and horse access is allowed; is that OK?
Any other questions please email [email protected] with "[Ticket#2022062410000107]" in the subject.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Also near Heworth, from survey 05/06, tr8905b

"outer" doesn't make much sense for a bit of a river, though?

@EP_Repair Thanks - now we just fentuz to identify which bit of that should also be the track Stonehill Lane.

Calm down, calm down...

You've changed something to a track, but unfortunately what you've changed is all of way/1013226608 . I don't think that that is all track (especially the bit that runs along the Fosse Way!).

Hello,
I think that something has gone a bit wrong here. https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1013226608 wasn't originally a highwayof any sort - it was just part of the Cotswold AONB relation relation/166570 . It's quite long way/1013226608 , so I expect that the part that is "Stonehill Lane" will need to be added sparately.

One more thing - if you're familiar with the area and know that it's definitely a public bridleway you could add the "designation=public_bridleway" tag to make it clear that that is the legal status.
Best Regards,
Andy