The source here is survey and Bing, and the fact that it was missing was pointed out by someone on IRC when I was trying to illustrate the bridge weight limit signage on the Stillingfleet road.

Hello,
I'm removing way/1016966270 et al that were added here, for a number of reasons.
The main one is that there is only one feature here, and that feature is a cycleway. You have added duplicate bridges where there is only one, and the alignment of the duplicate abandoned railway that you have added is very questionable in some places.
Secondly, the name is not now and I suspect never was "Temple Hirst Junction and Chaloner's Whin Junction via Selby Line". That appears to be a description that you have made up, or perhaps some (very historical, perhaps likely pre-dating BR) _route_ description.
If you want to add historical railway detail (and it's a fine aim; I've added plenty myself) and want to go beyond what is observable on the ground now then perhaps openhistoricalmap is the place for that? There I doubt that anyone would object to the adding of "Temple Hirst Junction and Chaloner's Whin Junction via Selby Line" as a route, with the dates when it was called that.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Quick question - should the braid of the Teesdale Way to the north of the Tees connect at relation/957011#map=16/54.5275/-1.8798 ?
I'm unfamiliar with the area and thought that you might know.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello GianlucaTrani85,
Are you perhaps the same user who has edited here changeset/134806147 and commented here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-edits-in-italy/97706/15 ?
If so, please don't continue creating new users accounts. It makes every edit look suspicious.

Hello,
It looks like you're "fixing" a minor issue with a broken import here - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagless-points-and-lines-in-greenbelt-md/97992 .
When you detect stuff like this (a way without tags not part of any relations) it's probably worth flagging it up somewhere rather than editing it further). Your change here will make the DWG's eventual revert harder.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

See osm.org/user_blocks/7053 (and the previous blocks that that links to) for more details.

The "=yes" ones, I think so. The Jo Malones you could probably pick the most popular of the othe used tags (though it seems to vary a bit).
"Monteblanc" is surely misspelt, but also presumable a shop for pens (which you've changed it to).

Hello,
Clearly some other people think that the name of the town should be different to what you think it is. https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/240079241 Can you explain where you have discussed this with the local community?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, from OSM's Data Working Group

> Or is it my mistake and "luxury shop" would be treated as shop category in UK

In a sense it is a shop category, but it's not a very useful one for OSM, because OSM tends to concentrate on "vertical" categories (what is sold, regardless of price) rather than "horizontal" ones (like this is) - although https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=variety_store is another example of the latter.
The industry does have specialists in the former - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LVMH is an obvious one.
Some of the examples here do have lots of other examples - play around with https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1tOg to see the sort of tags used for edge cases and you'll see only one other "yes" - mappers do tend to have a go at classifying these to sensible values (even if they can't always agree on what).
There was one advertised data consumer for these (me): https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=luxury#projects . They were included in a category less general than yes: https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L7697 .

I'm not convinced that the change to node/3340683299/history is helping here - "shop=luxury" (though rare) is definitely more descriptive than "shop=yes".
However in this case it also looks like the node's out of date - see https://www.theeastindiacompany.com/pages/flagship-store , which suggests that the new location is around osm.org/#map=20/51.51409/-0.14689&layers=H .

For the avoidance of doubt, @habi is absulutely correct here. We cannot copy data from Wikipedia, because Wikipedia's licence is not compatible with ours. It doesn't matter that it is just "an elevation and a population"; it will need to be redacted from OSM.
- Andy,
from OSM's Data Working Group
PS: Whatever was used as a source _by wikipedia_ may of course be compatible with OSM. I'd be surprised if something did not exist with that data under a compatible licence, but it's down to you to veryify that, not just copy from wikipedia.

Hello,
I've changed way/1160915136 from a footway to a cycleway (which it must be, because everything it joins is a cycleway), and split it so there is no longer a gap in relation/32019#map=20/52.56181/-0.23378 here.
Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
I've re-added way/1161358928 to the two relations that it was missing from - the bus route and the historic Watling Street one.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I've got a question about way/1154234489 , and the horse relation relation/1770168 more generally. way/1154234489 is currently in OSM as a footpath, and as it's obviously on a long distance horse route I suspect it should be more than that. It wasn't you, or anyone else from the NT, that introduced the gap - I'm just asking you because you're editing in the area and might know the answer!
Further north at relation/1770168#map=20/51.88200/-0.53786 , perhaps you know how the horse route crosses the Tring road?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Is way/1161416279 really just a footway? It looks like it has a horse route relation running across it relation/1770168 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Actually one more thing - I can see at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=18547093 that a few people have asked you questions. Maybe you're not seeing these messages at all? If you are, please do comment on one of the changesets to say so so that people can see that you're reading them.

Hello again,
It looks like the Chiltern Hills AONB got broken again here, and also the Icknield Way relation/4719539 (though as you can see there are lots of other gaps in that still). This happened before at changeset/134088053 .
If you need any help detecting and fixing these, please don't hestitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy

Indeed a revert is NOT an adjustment. Please discuss your edits in the Italian forum, as I suggested earlier.

> Qual è esattamente il problema?

Non so se ci sia un problema - sto solo suggerendo di parlare con la comunità italiana su https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-edits-in-italy/97706 per dire che non c'è 'T.
Distinti saluti,
Andy

> What is the problem exactly?

I don't know that there is a problem - I'm just suggesting that you talk to the Italian community at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-edits-in-italy/97706 to say that there isn't.
Best Regards,
Andy