@Spaghetti%20Monster%F0%9F%8D%9D - have you ever been to this area of Cyprus?

Hello,
I don't think that there is anything that suggests that way/812960030/history is part of the public road network, is there? OS OpenData suggests not (just look at that layer in an editor) and the rights of way data suggests that the whole thing is actually bridleway: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/50.9962/-0.1375/H/P .
See also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945 .

Hello,
Sorry for not spotting this comment for 5 months!
There are a number of "iD relation" issues, some of which you can see at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+relation .
What happened here was basically due to https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/10184 . When you remap something and you want to add it back to the relation, you need to choose which relation to add it to. The fundamental problem is that iD does not show object IDs, so (here) you have to choose between the name "EuroVelo 2 - Capitals Route - part United Kingdom 5" and the name "EuroVelo 2 - Capitals Route - part United Kingdom". The latter is "type=superroute", but iD doesn't show relation type either.
Also, when you hover over a way member of either relation iD will highlight all the same ways, because for superroutes it shows ways in constituent routes.
The (largely undocumented) answer is to find the relation number that you want by clicking on (in this case) way/1272629446 and "view on OSM". That tells you the relation number (in this case 5479817) and in iD when selecting a "parent relation" you can actually search (which isn't obvious) and can also search by number (even less so).
Cheers,
Andy

Thanks Paul,
"addr:village" makes much more sense to me.
As for post town tagging, maybe it needs a run across the mailing list or even a poll on the forum. The last round brought forth gems like https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-January/022424.html and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-January/022413.html (and, to be fair plenty of others with different views).
Cheers,
Andy

Oops - wrong account - should have been @SomeoneElse2

This changeset is massive only because the gas pipeline way/196268956 is very long!

Hello,
I'm not convinced that High Bentham (misspelt here as "Hgh Bentham") is a suburb of Lancaster! It's a very long way away and in a different county.
Wars have started for less :)
Best Regards,
Andy

From the canal, this just looks like residential gardens.
Do you have a link to the "OS Open Greenspace" imagery that suggested otherwise?

Hello,
What you've called the Doncaster Bypass here is not signed as that.
In my recollection (driving it for 40 years or so) it never has been.
Best Regards,
Andy

X is inaccessible to anyone and the two press articles will just be regurgitating press releases from the MOD, which leaves a couple of recent (post 2009) documents from them. Even https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63ca9693d3bf7f24b35c0f32/FOI2022-09171.pdf , despite looking like something from the 1970s, is dated 2021.
My guess is that someone there got confused and "Towthorpe Lane" (as Towthorpe Moor Lane is also commonly called) got made into "Towthorpe Line" (see https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/5_Regt_RA , https://ffhyork.weebly.com/uploads/8/2/0/5/8205739/ordnance_depot_railway_-_historical_notes_maps_and_pictures.pdf et al).
Historically it was always just "REME" (the operators of the site before the Army medics moved in) and gets referred to that in error even recently: https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2017-04-03/travel-strensall-barracks-area-north-yorks-crash/ .

Hello kvaziq, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
You've added node/12174392649 here, but that seems to be within another school - way/174136303 .
Maybe they are the same one?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
What's the source of the name "Army Medical Services Training Centre (Towthorpe Lines)"?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Any idea if way/1194235503/history is correct as it stands now? One of Rupert's mappers chopped it off at node/254068820 which created a gap in the AONB outer, which someone else later filled in, but originally that way was also a dismantled railway / footway, which now just abruptly stops.
Imagery suggests that the footway location is a bit far to the west and probably continues, but is far from clear.
I've no local knowledge but suspect you might have :)
Cheers,
Andy

@CAI Salò Per favore, unisciti alla discussione su https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/alpinist-routes-marked-as-footpaths/117644 . Se non lo fai, le persone non avranno ascoltato il tuo punto di vista e qualsiasi decisione presa non lo prenderà in considerazione.

@CAI Salò Please do join the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/alpinist-routes-marked-as-footpaths/117644 . If you don't, people won't have heard your point of view, and any decision reached won't take it into consideration.

@364 Please read osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

A day after this, the relation reappeared in the list of civil parishes in the local rendering database.

Re " I've opened up a topic" you've actually resurrected a topic from the old forum from 8 years ago!
I've asked the UK c.osm.org moderators to move it to its own new topic.

Hello Rupert,
6 days ago you were sent this message: osm.org/user_blocks/16645 . You appear to be ignoring it. In this changeset (with comment "#hotosm-project-17514 #cydnerthedd #resilience #GreenWales added buildings") you appear to be carrying on the same activity. Can you please explain what you're actually trying to do? One thing that I can see is, despite the "added buildings" comment, you have not added any buildings here.
I'd suggest creating a new topic at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86 to explain.
Best Regards,
Andy

Edited at changeset/156354917 .