No problem. Some other user(s) had partially reverted it and I thought I should do the rest

I presume ford=yes on Pinewood close is accidental?

Thanks for updating the other half of bus 727. You've changed the route in a few places, and the bus stops along West North Street have been removed from the relation. I presume this is based on local knowledge and the traveline data is incorrect?

In PTv2 route relations, the ways don't have a role. They need to be added to the relation in the order that a bus/vehicle would travel the route. This can be quite difficult to do using the ID editor, but is rather easier using JOSM

Thanks for updating the bus routes. When modifiying bus routes please check whether the `public_transport:version:2` tag is present on the bus route relation.

The ways in a PTv2 bus route relation don't have the `forward` and `backward` roles.

In this changeset you added `role:forward` on some ways in the 555 bus route which is PTv2. I'll fix this shortly

Please don't add stuff to openstreetmap that doesn't exist. Reverted changeset. changeset/60537916

Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. I'm just wondering whether this nursery should be tagged as `amenity=kindergarten` rather than school.

amenity=kindergarten

Changset message should read `Add pharmacy in hospital`. Appears JOSM changeset bug still not fixed.

Thanks for fixing this. Please try and add a meaningful changeset comment so other OSM mappers can understand the changes you've made

Issue fixed: changeset/59456773

Would it be possible to add more descriptive changeset comments please? It's really useful for mappers local to the changes to understand what the editor was trying to achieve.

You've added some features around here:
osm.org/#map=14/0.0032/-0.0126
which seems to be a long way from the other edits in the changeset.

Are you sure that the areas you added exist?

Thanks for the clarification. Was asking because the stop still appears in the traveline data for the route.

The OSMI PTv2 validator has flagged the Lancaster => Knott End variant, as the route misses some of the stops. Any idea if this route variation is temporary or more permanent?

relation/6152381#map=16/53.9273/-2.9873

Some of the bus stops on the Lancaster => Blackpool route variation, are also not visited

relation/8102581#map=17/53.81955/-3.04733

Thanks for your edit. I'm just wondering whether the routing of Bus 42 (Blackpool => Lancaster) is correct? The route doesn't seem to visit the Abingdon Street bus stop, at the blackpool end of the route
relation/4483907

Keepright has flagged that you have put `traffic_calming=humps`; where `humps` should be `hump`

https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=86&error=112948611

I think the aqueduct might go "over" this bridge. below the footpath, but inside the bridge itself. The bridge is very well built and it's a strange place for it to be otherwise.

way/125028047

Relation 487 seems to be invalid, and contains some gaps
relation/7919795
Would you like to fix it, or do I need to?

Thanks - I hadn't seen the note. Have turned on the notes layer in JOSM now. Removed in changeset/56868584