Hello,
What actually is the benefit of the "junction=yes" tagging on e.g. node/1839949101 ?
Best Regards,
Andy

(just for info) this looks OK to me too now, thanks!

Hello,
These have both been fixed now, but there was a problem with the revert attempt in this changeset.
3 different accounts were used to vandalise these relations at the same time, and any revert needs to revert the effects of all accounts at the same time, otherwise it won't work..
When dealing with only a few objects as here it's perhaps easiest to go "object by object" and pick a known clean one to revert back to, which is what I did with the GPSS pipeline in changeset/149830461 .
Cheers,
Andy

Ah - I see you're ahead of me and have fixed a number of subsequent ones with level0 :)

Not sure what happened, but lots of extra things were still in the relation here. I've restored relation/12189102 back to the pre-vandalism version. It might be worth logging a bug against whatever it was that managed to introduce the extraneous stuff in here?

Thanks - I think this does make more sense.

No, no local knowledge. Josm made that source up; I did not type it in or select it.

Of course, nodes can be part of two ways if features join, as node/11747001741 now is here.

Actually, it's not true to say that "greens are dominant over fairways". Different renderers processing OSM data will use different rules, but a common one is "draw smaller areas over larger ones" which lead to the effect that you think you're seeing.
However, if something is either fairway or not green it does make sense to have them as non-overlapping, as @CurlingMan13 has now edited it.

I've hidden some of the stupider comments here - they are neither helpful nor relevant.
- Andy (from the DWG)

Thanks - I've filled in the gap in changeset/149587811 and noted there that the spur into town was surveyed by you here.

Hello - is there really a gap in the NCN 13 as suggested by relation/13389346#map=17/51.48337/0.23041 ?
It looks as if it ought to perhaps carry straight on the Thames?
Best Regards,
Andy

Great - thanks for confirming.

I suspect that an approach that is a bit more nuanced than either extreme is currently taking is required - https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Jj7 is pretty clearly still a railway=abandoned (perhaps in addition to some other tags).
Similarly there other others (I've just commented elsewhere about way/1063504224/history ) where there really is nothing left and OHM really is the best place for such data.
These arguments were recently done to death (again) at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposing-to-deprecate-railway-razed-and-railway-dismantled/109679 . _Neither_ side of the argument is completely correct.

To be honest, one of the ways in this example, the railway=abandoned https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Jj4 is VERY obvious on aerial imagery, and I bet it's also obvious on the ground, too.
I don't believe that a reverter plugin revert "revert 148661572 for vandalism, adding railways that don't exist " was justified here, and I'd suggest that you revert your revert.
That doesn't mean that every old railway belongs in OSM; I've just commented elsewhere about way/1063504224/history ) where there really is nothing left and OHM really is the best place for such data.
These arguments were recently done to death (again) at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposing-to-deprecate-railway-razed-and-railway-dismantled/109679 . _Neither_ side of the argument is completely correct.

To be honest, in this example the railway=abandoned https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Jj4 is VERY obvious on aerial imagery, and I bet it's also obvious on the ground, too.

Hello,
This is just a quick test of whether a normal OSM user can have a normal changeset discussion with an MS Map Builder user, prompted by way/1267674441 being linked from a comment at @Pieter%20Vander%20Vennet/diary/400992#comment56982
Hopefully you'll see this comment and be able to reply by the same method!
Best Regards,
Andy

I'm not pitscheplatsch, but:
Generally speaking, the rate at which map tiles update depends on the map you're looking at, the zoom level, and often your local browser cache.
For map tiles in the default layer at www.openstreetmap.org , changed high zoom tiles get rendered on the fly, with low zoom tiles currently done daily.
If you're not seeing something after a few days it's probably a browser cache issue.
If you've got any more questions (and I'm sure you'll have lots) I'd suggest asking at https://community.openstreetmap.org .
Best Regards,
Andy

I can only see what you have written here :)
Were the edits to bridges etc. made after survey, or with aerial imagery, or something else?

Hello VARVAR8,
If "OSMOSE gave you a list of errors" please do NOT change data because of what it says. As Osmose's website https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr makes very clear: "In no case Osmose-QA should provide you the absolute right way to map, always keep a critical eye".
Your poor quality mapping has caused many people (including the DWG) considerable amount of work in the past.
Can you please explain in more detail what changes you made in this changeset changeset/149024785 and why you made those changes?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.