Hello,
How did you verify the name here?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

See also changeset/135222330

See osm.org/user_blocks/7074 and links from there for more detail. Also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-edits-in-italy/97706 .

Interestingly, looking at PRoW overlay data at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#17/51.89484/-0.55593/H/P suggests that the council might think that way/1161416279 actually is a public bridleway, although this doesn't mean that it's signed on the ground. The overlay there is at https://osm.cycle.travel/rights_of_way by @Richard from http://www.rowmaps.com/ .

Hola VBiondini y bienvenido a OpenStreetMap.
OSM es un mapa del mundo real, no es tu mapa personal para garabatear ("surface=BLA BL").
Puedes continuar editando cosas en OSM, pero por favor, solo cosas que realmente existen.
Atentamente,
Andy

Hello VBiondini, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
OSM is a map of the real world - it isn't your personal map to doodle upon ("surface=BLA BL").
You're welcome to continue editing things in OSM, but please - only things that really exist.
Best Regards,
Andy

See the "CC-BY 4.0 International" row at osm.wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility , which links to https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ which I linked to earlier. The Licence Working Group says that you need to get explicit permission before any data is imported. If that hasn't already happened then you need to sort that out before doing anything else, and if you can't sort that out we'll have to remove the data already added.
However, given that presumably you either are or deal with someone who can issue such a waiver, I presume that this won't be a problem?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ also.

Hello,
Can you link to the licence of this data please?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
See note/3479274 . Just for the avoidance of doubt, we should not remove data from OSM (as seems to have happened here**) on that basis.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

** other possibilities might include that there are other sources that were used here; unfortunately the changeset comment ("fixing notes ") doesn't make that clear if that was the case.

Hello,
The changeset comment here was just "fixing notes". What was the relevant note, and what information did you have that suggested that you could trust it (such as, for example, being added by a trusted contributor in the local area)?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks for commenting at the forum as well.

Hello,
You still seem to be adding things. Please stop until you have completed all the discussion around this import, and cleaned up any problems that have occurred so far.

Best Regards,
Andy

> standard Garmin maps that ship with both Basecamp and their satnavs

I have a GPSMap65S here, bought a couple of months ago, and the OSM data in their maps on that is from between August and October 2019 - it contains a pub with the name "York Arms (closed)" (sic), so this edit from 2021 wasn't distributed by Garmin on that device.
Plenty of others from osm.wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin will be more up to date, of course, and may show the problem.
In 6 months I guess that there's a chance that they might replace the wood with something else - we'll have to see!
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Which maps was it that you had a problem with? There are lots of different maps that people create for Garmin devices - it might be useful to know which had the problem.
I've set the surface back to wood in changeset/135009865 (because it is) and set the road to be "construction" for 6 months (because it also is).
Best Regards,
Andy

OpenStreetMap is a community. The fact that you are argumentative IS in itself a bad thing. and will not be tolerated if it threatens the ability community as a whole to work on OSM.

See osm.org/user_blocks/7061

Hello swordslife,
Could you please use more descriptive changeset comments rather than just "change"? It would help other mappers to understand the changes that you are making.
Best Regards,
Andy

The source here is survey and Bing, and the fact that it was missing was pointed out by someone on IRC when I was trying to illustrate the bridge weight limit signage on the Stillingfleet road.

Hello,
I'm removing way/1016966270 et al that were added here, for a number of reasons.
The main one is that there is only one feature here, and that feature is a cycleway. You have added duplicate bridges where there is only one, and the alignment of the duplicate abandoned railway that you have added is very questionable in some places.
Secondly, the name is not now and I suspect never was "Temple Hirst Junction and Chaloner's Whin Junction via Selby Line". That appears to be a description that you have made up, or perhaps some (very historical, perhaps likely pre-dating BR) _route_ description.
If you want to add historical railway detail (and it's a fine aim; I've added plenty myself) and want to go beyond what is observable on the ground now then perhaps openhistoricalmap is the place for that? There I doubt that anyone would object to the adding of "Temple Hirst Junction and Chaloner's Whin Junction via Selby Line" as a route, with the dates when it was called that.
Best Regards,
Andy