Hello,
I've just filled in a gap in the Cleveland Way - can you check changeset/111341520 to make sure that I've understood what E2 is doing here?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Thanks. Will you take other imagery layers into account for future edits?

Thanks. Rather than just "fix tag" here I'd have said "added area=yes tag to Burnham Pier so that it is recognised as an area feature rather than a linear one".

From looking at the history relation/6058814/history , it looks like it was originally "no U turn from way/173696670 back on to itself", which does make sense. I don't understand why another mapper changed it in changeset/37893249 - maybe you could ask them, or maybe they just made a mistake? Looking through their earlier changes in this area, such as changeset/37893189 , they did explicitly add some "no U turn" relations (that changeset has the comment "Demi-tour interdit".

Thanks. What should the changeset comment have been?

Should there be a relation that forces you to go straight on if you're coming from the southeast?
If so, to fix the problem you'd need to re-add that, not just to delete the invalid relation.

Thanks!

I'm confused that you've either (a) just used the wrong changeset comment or (b) you're copying data from an external site that includes data that isn't licence-compatible with OSM (your Arcgis site claims a source of "Esri UK, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS").

Also, please talk to your colleague at changeset/108759112 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Half of way/968168182 looks sensible but have does not. Have a look at OS OpenMap Local to see what I mean. I'd also suggest talking to your colleague at changeset/111131245 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I think you've got the barrier in the wrong place here. Have a look at the OS OpenMap Local Imagery from April this year.
Best Regards,
Andy

@Thomas Jarvis NastassiaKalesnikava has not replied, so I'd just revert this to what you know to be correct if I were you.

There clearly _is_ something there. I've updated in changeset/109825114#map=19/53.99148/-1.05755 based on what I can see from New Lane.

You've deleted the relation here, but from looking at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1be3 it's easy to see what the original mapper intended. Are you sure that there really is no relation here, or did you delete it because it was currently invalid (last edited by your Mapbox colleague DzmitryBachkarou 3 months ago)?

Hello,
Can you explain what a "bag update" is please?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello ZhannaB,
Please don't use just "correction" as a changeset comment - please explain what you changed and why, and what the source was
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello vinevzorova,
Please use more meaningful changeset comments that simply "fixed the name".
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
You've added node/9095261300 in someone's back garden in Cambridge. The only location visible on https://www.timberworks-cambridge.co.uk/contact/ is from a Google Map, which obviously isn't compatible with OSM's licence, To be fair you haven't added the POI exactly where the Google map had it, but both locations are implausible.
What I suggest that you do is contact local mappers (perhaps via an OSM note if you don't want to do the hard yards yourself) asking them whether this really is an office in the normal sense of the word, or is just a "work from home business" which wouldn't normally be mappable in OSM.
Best Regards,
Andy

Presumably this changeset comment belongs on a changeset in the USA somewhere, and a different one should be used for this one in Newbury?