what was your source for way/521544800 as it does not show on any imagery?

As you can see from my changeset comment the edit I made was purely on the ref tagging.

It would need a survey to see if cycling is actually permitted. Even if it were I don't believe this would change the designation tag, since this tag relates to the PROW designation.

This must have been a typing error, and I meant to change the relation to "water" not "wood".
Thank you for fixing it

since you also sent me a msg via the msging system I replied toyou there.

that msg stated "your tagging of landuse = farmland was on small parcels of land was incorrect. Landuse should be on the wider area.

Also as I pointed out in my earlier email, your changes were not in accordance with discussions on the Philippine mailing list.

I wasn't aware of the recent usage if the tag field=yes to which you drew my attention field=* because a search on the wiki for field does not show this page

I have therefore changed all my tags of field=* to field_boundary=* "

Source should have been Mapbox Satellite imagery

But the Bing imagery does seem to show two parallel footways, at least at the part of Regent Street north of Hartley Road

no, I've not

I had considered that the footpath network adjacent to regent street was adequate to provide foot routing, but on reflection that nay not be the case, so I have removed the noexit tag and added a short section of footway

I have now fixed it

If you look in deatil at my chnage you will note that the admin boiundaries remained unaffected by my changes.

You may be mitaking the problems which were caused by earlier edits by user Lola_Fox which also broke the coastline.

I split some ways and removed coastline tags from them in order to fix teh coastline, but made no cnages to the admin boundaries

Hello, user piucco. The footway you added here does not connect to either of the highways to the east or west, because it dos not share a common node with those highways

changeset comment should have been "delete unnecessary coastline and island ways"

You can use WhoDidIt to drill down to the area I made the change and then look in JOSM to see what node & way I might be shown as the last user who edited it.

In general I was fixing things flagged up as potential errors on the routing layer of OSM inspector http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing

The sort of problems fixed were:

mainly highways which do not connect to other highways, for a number of reasons , including:
a) the 1st highway has been connected to a landarea which shares the same position as the 2nd highway.

b) the 1st highway has been connected to a landarea which is very close to the position of the 2nd highway.

c) the 2 highways to be joined have nodes which are in the same position, but are not the same node, so routing is impossible

d) rather than joining highway 1 to highway 2, the end of highway 1 is very close to, but not connected to highway 2.

I will emnail you via the OSM msg system

The wiki is very clear that the tag "natural = beach" is only for the part of the beach above the MHW line.

So what you refer to as established tagging is still in contravention of what is expected.

It would appear Google was treating all change set comment messages as Spam

I was nit ignoring mappers commenst, I have no idea what changeset comments were not being emailed to me, but to be fair there were enough other ways of contacting me.

I have no idea what changeset comments were not being emailed to me, but to be fair there were enough other ways of contacting me.

It's not a mass edit. Each edit was individually made my me after viewing Bing imagery, looking at the error I was trying to fix, and then fixing it in JOSM

The sort of problems fixed are:

mainly highways which do not connect to other highways, for a number of reasons , including:
a) the 1st highway has been connected to a landarea which shares the same position as the 2nd highway.

b) the 1st highway has been connected to a landarea which is very close to the position of the 2nd highway.

c) the 2 highways to be joined have nodes which are in the same position, but are not the same node, so routing is impossible

d) rather than joining highway 1 to highway 2, the end of highway 1 is very close to, but not connected to highway 2.

These problems are identifiable on the routing layer of OSM Inspector. Where I have been unsure of whether something shown on the layer is a error or not I have left it untouched.

It's not a mass edit. reach edit was individually made my me after viewing Bing imagery, looking at the error I was trying to fix, and then fixing it.

The sort of problems fixed are:

mainly highways which do not connect to other highways, for a number of reasons , including:
a) the 1st highway has been connected to a landarea which shares the same position as the 2nd highway.

b) the 1st highway has been connected to a landarea which is very close to the position of the 2nd highway.

c) the 2 highways to be joined have nodes which are in the same position, but are not the same node, so routing is impossible

d) rather than joining highway 1 to highway 2, the end of highway 1 is very close to, but not connected to highway 2.

These problems are identifiable on the routing layer of OSM Inspector. Where I have been unsure of whether something shown on the layer is a error or not I have left it untouched.