Hello - please do not make up names by transliteration in this way. Only map names that actually exist.
If a data consumer wants to transliterate names, they can.

Thanks - these things do sometimes get forgotten.

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. We've often worked with land managers about helping understand why "just deleting the data" may not be the best approach.
The first and most obvious reason is that someone who doesn't know the history might just "re add" it based on aerial imagery or even something like Strava. The best thing to do might be to leave something there that accurately reflects the situation on the ground. That might be:
* highway=path with access tags set to "no" if there is something physically there but it is not open to the public.
* informal=yes if what is there was created informally
* Instead of "highway", set a tag such as "disused:highway" if nature is being allowed to reclaim what was there.
If you've got any more questions you can email us at data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2025040410000312] kjm1511". Another set of people who may be able to offer advice is the OSMUS Trails Working Group - osm.wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States#Trails_Working_Group .
Best Regards,
Andy

I think everything that was expected to reappear did, thanks.

Hello,
Thanks for this. I'm guessing that the gap at relation/69312#map=18/51.828983/-2.215376 is just "awaiting survey following completion of new housing estate" or similar?
The view of the ROWmaps data (green lines at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/51.82841/-2.21512/H/P ) I don't think has been updated for ages, but the path round to the south looks new, so presumably that may end up being joined and (and perhaps even signed).
Cheers,
Andy

It looks like way/1376867539/history was accidentally created as a duplicate way of way/366119186 in this changeset and as well as fixing some invalid relation that created others ("5446375 | Miltonsfields" fell out of the database last night).
I've deleted the duplicate and re-added the missing relations to way/366119186 . The relations I've edited in changeset/164846491 , changeset/164847085 and changeset/164847214 now verify in JOSM as valid polygons, so hopefully all is geometrically OK now.

Also a bit of cycleway near York college

Hello,
I've filled in a gap in the National Forest Way at relation/3748275#map=17/52.667166/-1.311819 . Does that look OK?
Best Regards,
Andy

See discussion on changeset/164484446 .

See discussion on changeset/164484446 .

See discussion on changeset/164484446 .

See discussion on changeset/164484446 .

See discussion on changeset/164484446 .

Thanks!

Thanks! Both "Diocese of Dublin" have reappeared.

Hello Balli Abokor,
We'd love to have your point of view in the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/please-update-and-include-somalia-s-newest-state-in-the-map/128229 about the admin_level=4 objects in this area.
You can login there with your OSM account.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend,
On behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello Parrot Overhead,
What Allison P says is entirely correct - things that don't have a physical storefront (or other things that don't exist in the physical world) don't belong in OSM at all.
If you have more questions and would like to discuss it with the community in general, https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 would be a great place to ask the question.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Thanks!

Thanks!

OK - that's now done in changeset/164504900 . I just added the missing relations to the stretch of untagged way in the gap, and checked that the relations were valid with JOSM's validator (see @SomeoneElse/diary/406398 for that).
Slightly confusingly here, there are two similarly-named relations here - there is relation/4189620 (An Roisín) and relation/4211826 (An Roisín Riabhach). These do have different logainm references and URLs, though.