These changesets changeset/141059419 , changeset/141066786 , and changeset/141073455 revert a series of mechanical edits of cycle network info. See osm.org/user_blocks/15020 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-September/030649.html for more information.

Also ts0119b, ts0119c, ts0119d

Hello,
Andy from the DWG here. Generally speaking, whenever it's been discussed, most people have preferred using multipolygons only when necessary (because an inner and and outer is needed, or because of way node limits).
If I am mapping in an area and adding new features I definitely would replace "unnecessary" multipolygons in this way.
However, it makes sense to discuss the pros and cons of different sorts of mapping over at the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/se/49 . It's a shame that you didn't seem to make any attempt to do that, or even comment on a changeset, before this revert .
It'd be good to know what the benefits of the "multiple outer" approach is, and the forum is surely the best place to talk about that.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Andy from the DWG here. Generally speaking, whenever it's been discussed, most people have preferred using multipolygons only when necessary (because an inner and and outer is needed, or because of way node limits).
If I am mapping in an area and adding new features I definitely would replace "unnecessary" multipolygons in this way.
It makes sense to discuss the pros and cons of different sorts of mapping over at the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/se/49 . It's a shame that archie didn't seem to make any attempt to do that before their first revert at 141032853 .
In this case, it'd be good to know what the benefits of the "multiple outer" approach is, and the forum is surely the best place to talk about that.
Best Regards,
Andy
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Any idea where the Leicester Round footpath goes at relation/1880252#map=18/52.51244/-1.18010 where there's a gap? There used to be a footpath (previously part of way/142006553 before it was edited) that went through the trees.
I've never walked this bit of the Leicester Round myself so I've no idea :)
Best Regards,
Andy

I suspect that having "place=county" on this will confuse data consumers, because anyone that counts counties in Ireland will suddenly discover an extra one.
If you think it really belongs in OSM (and not openhistoricalmap) then using a lifecycle prefix for "place" surely makes sense.
Best Regards,
Andy

Same comment as changeset/140959903 applies to -6859710 | Swallow Island and -6859709 | Orchard Island here, too.

Hello,
You've changed the tagging on https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/6859714 to "place=locality;islet". I'd probably just go with one of those, and tag another way around the edge if you need to tag the other as well, as nothing will understand the semicolon in the data. "place=locality" tends to be used on townlands of course, so maybe there needs to be one thing in OSM that carries the "natural" tags (place=islet; natural=wood" and one that carries the admin ones "place=locality; admin_level=10".

For more information on how OSM handles disputed names, see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf .
For an "on the ground" example of the name here, see Mapillary https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.806660105817&lng=46.769146952764&z=17&pKey=3972766682802980&focus=photo&x=0.554055808729109&y=0.6256731748420934&zoom=0.9098417631054552 .

Hello,
Apologies if you're already aware, but if you look at e.g. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/relation/1311341 you'll see a regular pattern - one user (in the case of Spain, often the same user) breaks admin boundaries and then "Garmin-User" comes along within a day or so and fixes them. I have asked in the past whether we needed to try and avoid breakage in the first place, but the fixing user here seemed happy to fix, so we (the DWG) haven't intervened.
In this case you've fixed it first, so thanks for that!
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Hello,
You've changed natural=hill on e.g. node/6387460626/history to natural=peak. That is actually used for something that's "not quite a peak" (see natural=hill?uselang=en-GB ). As https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=hill#projects says, it's shown from a higher zoom level).
Best Regards,
Andy

Still haven't taken a photo of it yet then (per changeset/138109479 )?

Hello,
way/574194017/history etc are surely "Miriam" not "Mirian" presumably?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
way/574194017/history is surely "Miriam" not "Mirian" presumably?
Best Regards,
Andy

One more thing - surely the logical place for historical railway information is https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/#map=18/53.90289/-1.32204&layers=O&date=1962-12-10&daterange=1923-01-01,2023-12-31 , but there seems to be nothing there.

> A single bridge can have multiple ways across it
It can, but this one does not. There is no railway. There has not been a railway here since the 1960s. A tag such as "railway=abandoned" makes sense here because it informs path users in the present day what sort of path they're likely to encounter.
You've re-added "ref=CFH1" here; presumably that is somehow related to the former railway?

In this changeset or a previous one you had created a duplicate railway bridge at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1zKl . There really is only one bridge, and it now has a cycleway running on it. Please don't add duplicate historical railways (and especially not "in the wrong place" as you did here).

Also ts0008a

Hello,
Following on from comments here, and on changeset/140601329 changeset/139977200 and changeset/140499434 , I'd strongly recommend raising this on the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/ .
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group