Thanks!

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
It was me that forgot to clarify that that foot and bicycle access was permitted, back in 2022 - see https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/32493721 . I've undone the duplicate cycle path here, since there isn't one, but clarified the access in changeset/160542044 .
Hopefully that's all OK now?
Best Regards,
Andy
PS: Any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask...

Thanks for trying to fix this - unfortunately it still left a duplicate cycleway in place that does not exist. I've reverted both this and the changeset that caused the initial issue, changeset/159271399 .
Chan you check that all now looks OK at your end?

A quick web search suggests that wholesale wicker baskets seems to be their thing, so fill your boots based on that.

Great, thanks!

Hello,
The access tag on node/355992929/history
that was added here was "privateclientelism". Someone's changed that to "customers;private" (which isn't particularly meaningful). What was the access tag supposed to be here - I'm guessing that "privateclientelism" was just a typo?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

I'm sure it'll be fixed soon. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/there-seems-to-be-a-problem-with-authorisation-currently/123139/9 .

I'd suggest that you at least ask about a waiver before reverting everything!
Perhaps ask in the forum c.osm.org ?

I think that we'd need to get a waiver, unless one has already been obtained.

On
https://data.humdata.org/dataset/cod-ab-mar
it says "License Creative Commons Attribution for Intergovernmental Organisations". That links to the licences page where it says "Creative Commons Attribution for Intergovernmental Organisations (CC BY-IGO)". That's not a licence that I've heard of before, but it does look similar to a normal "attribution" licence which may be problematic - see osm.wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility for other examples. You have a couple of options:

1) Ask for a waiver from whoever provided the data
2) Ask on the forum c.osm.org to see if anyone has asked for a waiver
3) Ask the LWG whether this licence is actually compatible.

That page says "You can share your data on HDX under one of the following Creative Commons licenses. ".

Where is the page that says that the data that you are using from there is ODBL?

Also, what is the source? Someone must have uploaded it to this site - where from?

That's just a list.

Under what licence(s) is the data from data.humdata.org that you actually used made available?

Hello,
Under what licence is data from data.humdata.org made available?
Best Regards,
Andy

It'd be greater to see a wider discussion about this, perhaps in the UK part of the forum c.osm.org?
Are there photos available along this length (e.g. from Mapillary)?

Thanks!

Hello,
Just to let you know, I think that this edit might have introduced a gap in the "Dedham Vale National Landscape" relation relation/9336585 . I've filled in the gap in changeset/160305838 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Here you've re-added a "highway-path" tag back to way/550162526/history which I'd marked as "note=Still nothing on this alignment" in the hope that that would stop someone re-adding it from some old imagery?
I'm not quite sure how that works with "Update deprecated tags. " :)
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I wonder if you have any idea how the "Way of Learning" relation connects to the coast? There's a gap in it at relation/11597074#map=18/54.912007/-1.375525 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello "Verney Fields" and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
OSM is a map of things as the really exist in the real world. It's not a vehicle for political argument or "satire".
You're welcome to continue with OSM as long as you map sensibly, If you don't, you'll be prevented from doing so permanently.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Thanks - from memory relation/109767/history / https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1VAb was never signed as NCN62 but was signed as TPT, so leaving it in just relation/4139162 makes sense.