Also, the ways that have been added to the superrelation relation/1992599 need removing.

OK, so it looks like all of the bits of relation 9579 that go from Hessle into Hull and out again (roughly here relation/9579#map=12/53.7471/-0.3904 ) need removing from that relation, and ways that form the new route of that relation between Hessle and Cottingham need adding to 9579.

I'll revert this, but where data has been edited, I'll leave the edits.

I'll revert this, but where data has been edited, I'll leave the edits.

I'll revert this, but where data has been edited, I'll leave the edits.

I'll revert this, but where data has been edited, I'll leave the edits.

I'll revert this, but where data has been edited, I'll leave the edits.

I'll revert this, but where data has been edited, I'll leave the edits.

Waterway nearby e.g. node/501294287 has been mapped and named, and that name is likely a better on than the one from the import here

I'll include this in the revert because the owner of the house at node/501215007 might be surprised to see a plane trying to land in their back garden.

Hello, you've added "seamark:type=wreck" to an artwork in the middle of Bowness node/5351865187/history . This seems an unlikely tagging?
Best Regards,
Andy

Ah - just spotted that way/352627868 actually is a footpath. May some bits are?

Hello,
Is relation/5261571/history really a route?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
(following on from osm.org/user_blocks/7082 )
What on earth does "#LBY" mean?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. We're aware that there's been a bit of an "edit war" here (see https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1086252957 for the to an fro tagging). In cases such as this, where a path really is closed due to e.g. erosion control, then I'd suggest tagging as "disused:highway=footway" rather than just deleting the highway tag (someone may add it back thinking they have fixed an "error") See
way/678188487/history for a similar example over in Yorkshire.
Obviously, (per the comments at changeset/135709994#c1025020 ) if this path isn't actually closed, then "highway=footway" is entirely appropriate, but other tags (sac_scale and trail_visibility are already present) might be relevant.
Best Regards,
Andy

See comments on changeset/135974161 .
If anyone wishes to comment publicly, please do so on that changeset. If anyone wants to comment privately, please do so by emailing [email protected] with a subject of "[Ticket#2023050810000254] changeset/135974161".

If anyone wishes to comment publicly, please do so here. If anyone wants to comment privately, please do so by emailing [email protected] with a subject of "[Ticket#2023050810000254] changeset/135974161".

The gate at node/10886350135 has a sign saying "private" on it, but in this edit I've not added explicit access tags to way/1168918378 . I've added "motor_vehicle=private" to way/1171570694 based on the sign at the north.
I have not (yet) set foot, bicycle or horse access tags.
Generally speaking in Scotland, https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/ should apply. See https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/sites/default/files/2018-05/Publication%202005%20-%20Scottish%20Outdoor%20Access%20Code.pdf for an English PDF version.

The sources for this edit included:
OS OpenData StreetView (used for note about old road status)
OS OpenMap Local (used for note about newer road status)
Bing imagery (hedges, trees, etc.)
A video provided by a local (tracktype, gates, hedges, walls etc).

For info - @SomeoneElse/diary/398374 describes the "is this path currently flooded" process.
The "currently flooded or not" status is in an external database, not in OSM. I added a note to e.g. way/753771968 , but that's just for info.