Apologies, the first link should be:
relation/9467090

Hi Mac'
You created this proposed NCN 5 Rel:
relation/123318#map=17/51.61142/-1.24549

Where does the path go currently?

relation/123318#map=17/51.61142/-1.24549

It fits well with your previous 3 blocks for the same reasons.

Hi Owain
Could you take a look at a few of your edits:
Some old bits of NCN4 have been left behind
relation/1318930#map=19/51.60192/-3.34187

Does NCN4 go along this separate way or is it on the parking aisles?
way/757973438#map=19/51.60173/-3.34178

On the other side of Catherine Street you deleted a path. Shown Light red at the right hand side here:
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=78745325
http://tinyurl.com/yjs75m5n
Has it been blocked up?

Hi
You must be frequently "low on memory".@JayCBR/history

Surgeries & Gyms are not residential.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.71767927245395&lng=-1.9684583600628685&z=17&pKey=I9dFsGFlpcM8m9j3OHxTyA&focus=photo&x=0.606048708233766&y=0.5277390829747824&zoom=0
This is a city centre through road not a living street
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_street

and that surface definitely isn't cobbles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobblestone

Hi
What was incorrect with the way these roads were tagged previously?

Hi
Please add a descriptive comment to changesets so your intent is clear.
Many of these edits appear counter what's on the ground.
Why have to tagged this as residential when no one lives along it
way/84302236
Why have you amended this road to 'living street'?
way/23543004
Are you sure the the ways you've re tagged a cobbled surface actual are?

Hi Thomas
What is the 'Great C hunt'?
I see you created a lot of route relations & I'm curious as to their purpose, other than to add refs, which should really be added to the ways as highway_authority_ref.

Do you have a link to the source & the issue licence?

On the ground surveys are the best to get the most up to date information. Take a camera, & if you have it, a GPSr (on your phone?) when you venture further afield. Recording waypoints is a useful reminder of where the photos were taken.

Sorry, I got slightly confused with the Eastwood launderettes. the building polygon didn't have a shop tag but a duplicate name. It's always best to add tags to the polygon if the whole building is used for one purpose, as in this case. You added them to an entrance node. I've now transferred them to the polygon.

Westwood: If you know the extents of the launderette maybe you could split the West Operations Centre building & map the launderette as a separate room. Similar to here: way/87270912

Please check for existing shops as polygons before adding nodes:
way/144114584

Is this building now the launderette? If so could you transfer the tags from the entrance to it
way/87270915/history

Please don't use Google Maps as a source. It's copyrighted & OSM can't use it.
You've doubled up on the number of launderettes by add shop tags to the entrances.

Hi
Your addition of the fences makes the map much clearer.

I've removed the name tags as prow_ref is sufficient. They are for proper names like 'Gloucester and Avon Tramway' ' The Dell' etc.

I've amended some of the prow_refs to be consistent & precise with SGC. The suggestion on the Prow_ref wiki page of adding is, I believe, wrong. I gave my reasons a couple of time on the Talk-GB forum, & have just added it to this discussion page:osm.wiki/Talk:Key:prow_ref

https://snipboard.io/zjtT1h.jpg
The SGC data shows LDN/2/10 exiting into Golden Valley Rd. is that the case? If it goes into the spur as shown does it require a bridge section over the stream?

You were looking at the *wrong* map.

Hi welcome to OSM
I'm pretty sure "Nice view of river canyon" is it's official name.
What are the TMB tags?
"Point where we turned back" < OSM is not a personal diary.

I think this changeset will probably reuire reverting.

Hi
I've just found it
https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/51.45468,-2.42429,16

I think it's called just 'Standard', It's missing a large percentage of PROWs bridleways etc. Hardly authoritative proof.
What you need is OS Explorer (link in previous comment.)

Hi
OSM has to be based on the best, authoritative data available, which isn't a landowner who gets upset with people crossing his land. Provide evidence from the local authority they've been removed & I'll willingly remove them from OSM

What is the name of the app you use? What is the name of the rendered layer?

Marinas aren't just the water part, but dry land including ancillary buildings etc.

leisure=marina

way/126072188/history

Err.. OK - What /evidence/ is there? Signs? Fences? What prevents walkers taking the route as legally defined?

Unsure on updates. The last one was around August time.

Hi Mark
What knowledge do you have that path LWA/71/10 has been diverted around the boundary of the field as you mapped: way/759153326 instead of its diagonal alignment as per the OS map? http://tinyurl.com/vmvjlku and SGC;s latest dgital PROW database: https://snipboard.io/bfZpME.jpg

Please add references for PROWs to the established prow_ref tag.

Cheers
DaveF