Thanks for raising it on the forum!

For info, this is what a bar billiards table looks like: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/241539.jpg . That's not one of these but the one in node/559267374/ .

Please don't add AI generated slop to the OSM database.
If someone wants to see that, they can perform the same mechanical process that you did.

Oops - I'm guessing a name of "D" for relation/3266778 is an accident?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hi LOHS Dragons,

If a trail is no longer in use, I'd suggest changing the tag on each section from "highway=path" to something like "disused:highway=path" is better than deleting it. The reason for that is that if someone sees nothing at all there when editing OSM, they might just add it back, especially if looking at old aerial imagery from before the time when the trail was disused.
You can also ask people at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 about it.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I'm not sure what adjustment was made here - it seems to be a small adjustment to building geometry. One thing that it might be useful to know is that if the underlying building is rectangular (as appears to be the case here) then you can "square up" buildings in OSM by pressing "q". Also, I notice that diffrent imagery sources here differ about the "imagery offset" here. I don't know which is more correct, but there are lots of mappers in the Philippines, and asking at https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/philippines would probably get an answer.

I also don't understand the comment '[I just adjust “areas” to avoid copyright infringement.]' on your profile :)

Best Regards,

Andy

Hello,
You may wish to read and comment on @UNGSC-DTLM-Ale_Zena/diary/405186 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I know this was a year ago, but I'm just wondering what prompted the addition of "access=no" on way/852181100/history#map=18/53.749696/-2.056549 ? It was already tagged as "motor_vehicle=private" and various other transport modes as "yes". It's not "wrong", just ... unusual?
Best Regards,
Andy

For clarity, the only change here was to add a layer=1 tag to the bridge way/91855831/history .

There may be more signage (worth going back to have a look) beyond "no access to allotments". Also several different surfaces here, so splitting would make sense.

Hello,
I'd suggest explaining to everyone at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/its-time-to-address-the-a8-m/117468 the reasoning behind this change.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Thanks!

Per https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945/11 , could you please explain what you changed here and why?

Per https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945/11 , could you please explain what you changed here and why?

Also, the whole public bridleway is also definitely bicycle=yes (there's a legal right to cycle along bridleways in England and Wales) - but I appreciate that you didn't add that tag here.

The wiki statement "Roads used for access to permanent human settlements or facilities should generally not use this tag" is on one level utter rubbish (because, as here, there's very often a mix of access to both fields _and_ the people who live in or near them) and also understandable as a pushback against (I think) a previous version of the iD editor's suggestion that "highway=track" be used for more than just agricultural access: osm.wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions#Calling_a_highway=track_an_%22unmaintained_track_road%22 .
Whenever changing highway tags ideally you should do an actual survey, but if you can't do that you absolutely should look at the available sources, and here OS OpenData suggests that your "residential" road is probably functionally someone's driveway, as well as being the start of the track going west.

Someone at Microsoft has said (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945/4 ) that they'll review these edits for errors - I hope they are doing that.
With a DWG hat on I don't think I'm going to be reviewing all 2714 or so remaining ones - in the event of no action by Microsoft all that I can see that I could usefully do is to block accounts to force a review - but obviously it makes sense to try and help people understand some of the issues first.

@Spaghetti%20Monster%F0%9F%8D%9D You haven't answered the question :)

"bar_billiards" is a completely different game to billiards.