No worries - I just thought that you might have the "inside track" on that!

I'll ask the creator of way/1138299551 .

... so that would suggest informal=yes; access=no?

Hello,
It would be helpful to explain in a bit more detail why you re-added way/1150001201 . I know from a separate email that it's based on a GPS trace, but it would really help other mappers if you explained a bit more about what you did.
Also, a highway=path on its own isn't very helpful - surely some other tags could be added here?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello Zol87,
I'd be great if you could give a bit more of a meaningful description than "Fixed Streets" - what was wrong, what did you fix? What source was used?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
What is the source of your change to way/174566130/history#map=18/32.74353/-117.19409 ?
Is it a street sign somewhere, or something else?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
In this changeset you've added a couple of ways to the "superroute" of the wales coast path relation/1820890 . That already includes the Llyn coast path relation/1820886 , so these ways don't need to be added to both (in fact, it'll cause a bit of confusion if you do). Just adding them to relation/1820886 will work.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
There's still a bit of a gap in the South West Coast Path relation in this area: relation/2373766#map=16/50.9214/-4.5497 . Should that now route over way/1138299551 now?
Best Regards,
Andy

This also fixed accidental breakages in these townlands:

2a3
> -15462715 | Drimna
22639d22639
< -5523324 | Poppintree (Finglas)
28127d28126
< -5378792 | Meakstown
55288c55287
< (55285 rows)
---
> (55284 rows)

Hello again Wibblejunior,
Again, more "Classification changes". On changeset/132989049 I asked you to say a bit more about why you are making these changes please do explain.

Re ""data consumers" take the database as is" indeed; if they don't know that you're changing tags (because you haven't bothered to tell anyone) how are they supposed to know?
OpenStreetMap is a shared project that we need to work together on. Discussion with other people about what you are proposing to change would (a) give everyone a heads up and (b) help weed out some of your laughably poor quality changes such as changing the "Lawrence Dallaglio" rugby ground to a running track.

You seem to be suggesting that you're just making a series of automated tag changes.

If that's the case, you really ought to be following osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct , in particular "Document and discuss your plans".

I'm guessing that you never bothered checking what way/580156477/history actually was. The previous tagging of "landuse=reservoir" was a bit of a stretch, but "natural=water" it most definitely is not. Both are just empty concrete pits right now.

This looks like an automated edit.
Was it actually discussed anywhere with e.g. talk-gb, before data consumers would notice things disappearing from maps?

Also includes deleting duplicate York-Stamford Bridge railway line.
This had been deleted, restored, and then duplicated (but sometimes in the wrong place). I'm pretty familiar with the route of this (it;s still very much there in the landscape). The bits that aren't walkable paths are visible from adjacent roads and paths, and also from on-the-ground trees etc.

Hello again Wibblejunior,
What are you using as the source of this series of "Classification changes"? Previously in OSM you made a number of these changes that really didn't make any sense (for example, way/77779903/history ).
It would really help for you to say a bit more about why you are making these changes, and to discuss these changes with other mappers.
Most local mapper chat probably happens via https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb , but there are other places such as the community forum https://community.openstreetmap.org that might be easier to use.
Last time, we never really got a response to why you were making these changes, despite attempts to get in touch like e.g. osm.org/user_blocks/4799 and had to undo them. We don't want to have to do that again, so please do provide a little more explanation.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
Oops - I'm not sure what happened here, but you managed to remove the administrative boundary from Black Hawk County here.
Have you any idea what might have happened? It might not be anything that you did; it might be an editor bug or similar.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Oops - I'm not sure what happened here, but you managed to remove the administrative boundary from Monroe County in New York here - a long way from Milltown!
Have you any idea what might have happened? It might not be anything that you did; it might be an editor bug or similar.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Thanks, but Telegram isn't really open to anyone to see it! I'd definitely recommend saying whatever needs saying in some "open" space too. You can also link it in changeset comments, so that people can see what was said on the discussion from there.

Hello,
Just to let you know, the Data Working Group have had a complaint from within the Serbian community about changing area=yes;highway=" to "area:highway=". I don't know how how widespread this concern is, but would definitely suggest that you engage with the Serbian community (perhaps https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/rs/64 might be a good place).
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group