Hello,
In this changeset you created a gap in the Jubilee Way. Before:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1jVd
After:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1jVe
Looking at the imagery, it looks like there is a path through.
Turn on GPS traces, and you can see that a bit of GPS traces matches the OS OpenData StreetView. Of the other imagery Bing isn't much help but Esri and Maxar do show something a little to the west of the GPS trace.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hi Dudley,
Just wondered - is way/973303758/history really a castle wall?
I don't think I've ever got that close to it, but it seems a bit unlikely?
Best Regards,
Andy

According to https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2022-July/029121.html , it appears that the mapping in this changeset is based on out-of-date information.

Hello R66_Mapper,

On this changeset it looks like you've used Google Maps when editing here. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello SHARCRASH,
I'm not going to have a discussion about "how to map farmland". As I said above, neither approach is wrong.
The question is really about "please leave room for other mappers in Luxembourg". You say "I'm not forbidding anyone to map" but that literally has been the effect of your actions. Please do not always assume that your approach is correct and other people's approaches are wrong.
If it came down to it and we had to choose between keeping you as a contributor in Luxembourg but losing everyone else, or keeping everyone else and losing you, we'd choose the second option instantly. However, we don't want to make that choice. Please be respectful of what other people have already edited.
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

Hello,
Is the barrier node/9748840547 part of the road way/4422303 ? What sort of barrier is it - do vehicles ever get the opportunity to go beyond it (i.e. is it a removable one, and residents have keys for it, or similar?)
Best Regards,
Andy

Bonjour Reims Moderne,
Beaucoup de gens ont commenté vos changesets. Ceux-ci vous auront été envoyés par e-mail et vous pouvez également les voir sur https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=8585988 . Merci de répondre. Aussi, s'il vous plaît, utilisez de bons commentaires sur l'ensemble de modifications, pas seulement des choses comme "mise à jour".
Cordialement,
Andy

Hello Reims Moderne,
Lots of people have commented on your changesets. These will have been emailed to you and you can also see them at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=8585988 . Please do reply. Also, please use good changeset comments, not just things like "mise a jour".
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello ilya_edel84,
Followimg on from the suggestion above, it's been suggedted that you've been copying some of these "unsurveyable addresses" from sources that aren't compatible with OSM.
If we don't hear anything to the contrary, we'll need to remove these from OSM
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

გამარჯობა ზურაბ055,
გთხოვთ, ნუ დაამატებთ მსგავს მარკერებს, როგორც „ტოტალიზატორის მაღაზიები“ Maps.me-ში. თუ Maps.me არ გაძლევთ საშუალებას დაამატოთ ნიშნები ხეებზე (OSM-ში ეს იქნება "ტურიზმი=ინფორმაცია; ინფორმაცია=გიდპოსტი"), გამოიყენეთ სხვა კლიენტი - შესაძლოა OsmAnd, ან მონიშნეთ მდებარეობები შენიშვნებით და სწორად განაახლეთ ისინი. სახლში მივიდნენ.
Საუკეთესო სურვილებით,
ენდი

Hello Zurab055,
Please don't add markers like this as "bookmakers shops" in Maps.me. If Maps.me doesn't let you add signs on trees (in OSM that would be "tourism=information; information=guidepost") then use a different client - perhaps OsmAnd, or mark the locations with notes and update them properly when you have got home.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello SHARCRASH,
We've had a complaint about the "merged equal elements" part of this changeset. As an example, way/974591622 was previously mapped, and you can see that at https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=109919934 . You've consolidated that in to way/354361772 .
Neither approach is "wrong", but arguably https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=109919934 is closer to how people think about farmland than the oddly-shaped way/354361772 .
Please try and avoid "remapping" things that are already correct. As osm.org/user_blocks/5311 said, please leave room for other mappers in Luxembourg.
Best Regards,
Andy

@Mateusz I've replied to the original talk-gb thread at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2022-June/029093.html and suggested that either the mapper here or their supervisor engage there.

We (the DWG) will take advice from people familiar with the areas
affected to decide whether a revert of the data imported so far is the
best way forward.

Thanks for that. I suspect (based on what I've heard elsewhere) that Sustrans' own data for routes isn't licence-compatible with OSM, but I guess "asking them for a waiver" is always an option.
The routes always do seem to be in a state of flux, especially since "Paths for everyone" which removed sections which, although required for linkage, weren't great examples of cyclable routes.
I'm wary about connecting routes where they "logically ought to" because in some cases they definitely don't. That's why I mentioned it to someone who might be local who might know what the signs said!
No problem if you don't - I'm sure some keen cyclist will cycle it (and correct the route) at some point.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. The two discussion comments above are correct. If it applies to you, you need to follow the Organised Editing Guidelines.
Any questions, please email the DWG at [email protected] .
Best Regards,
Andy

@AyushS183 Please do ensure that you follow https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines - inclduing making sure that a project page is set up and your profile (and the profiles of any other mappers taking part in this project) link to it.

@AyushS183 Just to make it absolutely clear - the suggestion above is that the data on that site is _incorrect_. Can you perhaps go to the street in person and verify the correct situation?

Hello,
Just for info, I've split way/245997566 off from the longer service road and added it to the two relations here.
Best Regards,
Andy

Oddly, this change caused this national park to drop out of my rendering database as an "area" feature. Perhaps because the list at https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1 needs updating; just mention this as an example of something that did break as a result of this change.

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