piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mavl (2024-10-23 04:33:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 158236393 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping].
Stretch Longfellow (2024-09-28 17:10:58+00:00): As much as I appreciate the Cornhusker Council history as an avid Scouter in the area, this is not how to edit this. This is not the name of the woodland, and historic names have a different tagging scheme.

I recommend checking out OpenHistoricMaps for stuff like this.
Loide Jonathan (2024-09-08 19:48:46+00:00): Etale is a village located in the Ohangwena Region of Namibia, near the northern border with Angola. It’s geographic coordinates are approximately  17.3833° S  and 16.6333° E.The exact population of Etale village in the Ohangwena Region, Namibia, is not readily available from standard population databases or recent census records. Population data for small rural villages like Etale may not always be individually reported, as these areas are often aggregated into broader administrative or census districts. However, the Ohangwena Region itself is one of the most densely populated regions in Namibia, with a total population of around 245,446 people according to the 2011 Namibia Population and Housing Census. The region has experienced steady growth, so the population may have increased since then.

Etale, being a rural village, likely has a relatively small population, similar to other rural villages in the region, which can range from a few hundred to a few thousand residents depending on its size and development.
mavl (2024-10-23 04:33:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 158236393 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping].
jandar22 (2025-01-28 16:03:15+00:00): Hello, as part of this changeset Auten Road (w787967132) was moved, as a whole, roughly 50 feet to the south - possibly result of an unintentional Move command used when the whole feature was selected. This caused some crossing ways, partially addressed by changeset#156691847 - and overall misaligned the road. Please take caution, especially with a large changeset such as this, and check the elements you've modified before saving your edits publicly.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156285571
jandar22 (2025-01-28 16:11:25+00:00): Resolved above issue in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161863933
VLD157 (2024-09-06 19:08:32+00:00): Hello manalnaseem123,

I was looking at changeset 156285683 and noticed that you have many other recent changesets that are similar. I am curious what source was used to make the additions?
onovy (2024-09-06 19:43:13+00:00): Ahoj,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12160528329#map=19/49.554318/17.569687

transformator umisteny na sloupu elektrickeho vedeni se spravne taguje:
power=pole
transformer=distribution

viz. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Elektrick%C3%A1_veden%C3%AD#Sto%C5%BE%C3%A1ry
5m4u9 (2024-09-07 07:12:02+00:00): Hola, otra equivocación en tu edición. No puedes mover donde sea el punto asignado al barrio.

Por otro lado, la imagen satelital que se ve al editar tiene un fallo y está movida al Sureste. Antes de editar tienes que mover.
rskedgell (2024-09-07 06:58:50+00:00): How can you tell from aerial imagery that these are 36 storey apartment buildings, each containing only 6 flats?
mavl (2024-10-23 04:33:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 158236393 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping].
Wise_Turtle (2024-09-06 17:48:34+00:00): My mistake

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156286441
mavl (2024-10-23 04:33:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 158236393 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping].
Baloo Uriza (2024-11-06 20:05:10+00:00): Oops, thanks for catching my typo.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156286467
NorthCrab_upload (2024-09-06 18:00:49+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera nadmiarowe informacje. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Paczkomat nie powinien mieć nazwy. Nazwa nadawana jest automatycznie, na podstawie wartości brand. Opcjonalnie, numer identyfikacyjny może być przekazany w polu ref.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12160547966
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12160547972

Dokumentacja paczkomatów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:amenity%3Dparcel_locker

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
TrickyFoxy (2024-09-06 19:03:43+00:00): Здания ещё не построены, отсутствуют на снимках, а вы уже проставили цвет фасада и крыши. Названия также сомнительны
TrickyFoxy (2024-09-06 19:05:45+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156289142
tordans (2024-09-08 05:31:36+00:00): Hallo MCLU, kannst du dir bitte die Änderungen an den Fahrradständer-Kapazitäten bspw. in https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6198207558 nochmal anschauen?
In diesen 4 Ständern sind die Werte IMO anders, wenn ich es mit Mapillary vergleiche https://www.mapillary.com/app/?z=18&lat=52.49810839999998&lng=13.443048800000042&panos=true&pKey=1162841444920351&focus=photo&x=0.6410001683797544&y=0.6307385684256643&zoom=1.7893401015228436

Vielen Dank
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156286947
tordans (2024-09-08 06:24:35+00:00): Die Situation in https://www.mapillary.com/app/?z=19&lat=52.5006879&lng=13.442575799999986&panos=true&pKey=3806469733008723&focus=photo&x=0.8346866769413885&y=0.5982587954328566&zoom=0 scheint mir auch nicht ganz klar. 

Ich vermute, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6697141746 mus gelöscht werden da die Ständer nur bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6697142100 und der direkt daneben sind?
MCLU (2024-09-10 18:32:04+00:00): Stimmt, da habe ich mich vertan.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6198207557 hat acht Stellplätze und https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6198207557 sechs.

Deine Vermutung bzgl. der anderen Stellplätze ist ebenfalls richtig, die eine Node sollte entfernt werden und die Stellplätze auf die verbleibenden aufaddiert werden.

Leider streikt der Editor bei mir gerade und die App die ich verwendet habe lässt keine Änderungen zu, ich werde das zeitnah versuchen zu beheben.
citrula (2024-09-06 20:57:05+00:00): Welcome to OSM - Please don't use descriptive names like "Brazoswood Apts Driveway Entry/Exit". It's totally fine for objects to not have a name. Please take a look at the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156286981
TrickyFoxy (2024-09-06 19:00:44+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156288978
Bienson (2024-09-07 01:08:06+00:00): Hallo,

Ich habe folgendes wieder gelöscht:

Schornstein - der Tag ist natürlich für hohe Schornsteine wie bei Kraftwerken gedacht, nicht für Hausschornsteine:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:man_made%3Dchimney

3x amenity=parking_entrance - hiermit wird die Zufahrt/Ausfahrt von Parkhäusern und Tiefgaragen getaggt, keine Garagentore:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dparking_entrance

9x barrier=block - hier gibt es keine Steinblöcke, die den Fahrweg blockieren. Die Reihe an Steinen zwischen den beiden separat eingetragenen Grundstückszufahrten kann anderweitig eingetragen werden, ist aber nicht routing-technisch relevant.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:barrier%3Dblock

Ich habe außerdem vom folgenden Gebäude die Geschossanzahl auf building:levels=2 korrigiert:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53521725

Changeset:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156296464
eggie (2024-09-06 20:51:42+00:00): Dag Memc  De begraafplaats stond al op de kaart. Je extra info heb ik daar aan toegevoegd.
MVG
eggie
Memc (2024-09-07 18:49:45+00:00): Beste Eggie, Bedankt voor de feedback en wijziging.
mvg
Memc
eggie (2024-09-07 19:10:55+00:00): Graag gedaan. Je ziet nu ook kruistekens ipv algemene grafsteentjes.

Gr eggie
TrickyFoxy (2024-09-06 18:57:43+00:00): Use sandbox https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org
TrickyFoxy (2024-09-06 18:58:08+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156288882
Carto'Cité (2024-11-11 12:57:42+00:00): Salut _Mathieu_
J'ai vu que tu avais repassé certaines traversées piétonnes en path. Ça me convient même si j'ai tendance à les laisser en footway pour ma part mais ça ne change pas grand-chose chose : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/663771107
Par contre, j'avais zappé de corrigé le cycleway/path/footway=crossing et tu as aussi laissé l'erreur 😅
Je le passe donc en path=crossing. Je crois qu'il y en a d'autres.
Si tu passes dans le coin et que tu as l'occasion de faire des photos pour Panoramax n’hésite pas, c'est toujours une source géniale d'information et on en manque encore beaucoup.
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
Enock4seth (2026-07-30 08:53:24+00:00): Hi TMGRoyale - TempleMount Private Investigations - TMGI, Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for mapping. This and all your contributions around here looks imaginary or are yet to be put on the ground i.e. "in development". 

It's over 2 years and I see no such developments on available aerial imagery. Can you kindly clarify where this is coming from?
TMGRoyale - TempleMount Private Investigations & Ethical Investments - TMGI (2026-07-30 10:11:44+00:00): Who are you? Unfortunately, you have not disclosed who you are and your interests. The Trustees do not deal with anonymous enquiries. Law enforcement has been informed of massive Land Fraudsters operating in the South Dayi District.                                                     For any legitimate enquiries, you are advised to disclose who you are, your interests and your source of authority to the following email address: kokufoli@lawyer.com, within the next 14 days or consider your comment vexatious, of criminal intent and expunged.

Yours sincerely,

TMGRoyale - TempleMount Private Investigations
eggie (2024-09-06 21:00:56+00:00): review_requested
  	yes

Dag Memc  Lijkt me oke.
Gr eggie
rskedgell (2024-09-07 06:53:19+00:00): There isn't exactly that, but building=ruins or building=yes + ruins=yes might work. Possibly building:levels=0 and height=0 might be better than using layer=-1 (which probably won't do anything). You could also add them as inner members of the surrounding natural=wood polygon, assuming that the concrete bases create small clearings in the woodland.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Druins
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ruins

It might be worth asking for advice on the community forums, as hopefully other mappers have come across a similar problem before.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/
DOLMark (2024-09-07 09:02:32+00:00): Lots of similar questions in community, no real answer. Best efforts which avoid the "removed without trace" lifecycle tags, seems to be:
building=industrial
building:levels=0
surface=concrete
historic=ruins
ruins=*
SomeoneElse (2024-09-07 10:18:21+00:00): Maybe try https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/51.6992/-0.0119/H which might do a better job of showing former buildings etc.?
silversurfer83 (2024-09-09 18:46:39+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap,
danke, dass du hilfst die Karte aktuell zu halten.

Du hast darum gebeten, dass sich jemand diese Änderung ansieht. Wie fast alles bei OSM übernehmen auch das Freiwillige nach Lust und Laune (und daher auch manchmal niemand) und du hast jetzt mich erwischt ;)

Also: Kommentar und Quellenangabe passen zu deiner Änderung. Wunderbar. Der Verlauf des Weges sieht auch gut aus.
Eine Frage bleibt: Bist du dir bei der EInstufung des tracks sicher? Du kannst zu praktisch allen Eigenschaften, die wir vergeben, auch die Dokumentation in Wiki nachlesen:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:tracktype

bei Fragen immer raus damit

happy mapping
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156289068
Homertkurier (2024-09-09 20:16:56+00:00): hallo silversurfer83,
danke für das freundliche Feedback.
Nach nochmaliger Überlegung denke ich, man sollte den Track besser mit "grade4" einstufen, da er kaum noch befestigt ist.
Hier das neue Changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156412858
rskedgell (2024-09-07 07:03:09+00:00): Looking at that user's other edits, it's probably a DWG issue. I've flagged their account for vandalism.
TrickyFoxy (2024-09-07 07:35:03+00:00): Yes, I already reported it to the DWG.
IpswichEdits (2024-09-07 20:35:22+00:00): Hi pole_climber! Well spotted, you're absolutely right it should be a service road, not a track. I'd personally question 'service=driveway'. Perhaps just leave it as highway=service and delete the 'service=driveway'? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service=driveway suggests 'driveway' would only service one property, which isn't the case here.
IpswichEdits (2024-09-08 09:49:54+00:00): Sorry, me again! Possibly "highway=service" and "access=private", since it services multiple properties but is technically a "private drive" (there's a sign at one end saying such). This way routing algorithms should avoid it for through-traffic for motor vehicles, but maybe also add "foot=yes" since it's a legally a public right of way? What do you think?
pole_climber (2024-09-08 21:22:38+00:00): Hi IpswichEdits. Thanks for your comments, very helpful and I've just had an interesting read about service=driveways and learnt a new term pipestem (shared driveways). I originally added driveway because of that sign at the end of the road and your comment about access is also correct. Will review later this week.
IpswichEdits (2024-09-09 08:09:13+00:00): No worries. Thanks for what you're doing. Keep up the great work! My comments were just from observations and because I live locally. Yes it's an interesting read. Pipestems were new to me too. I gather from the OSM wiki that it's a term common in the USA. Personally I've never heard of it as a term in the UK. Please do whatever you feel is right here. It's an unusual road and combination of factors. :-)
pole_climber (2024-09-18 19:43:14+00:00): Hi IpswichEdits. Updated. Removed driveway: added Access=private and footpath. Took the liberty of adding permissive for cycles! I'd like to see the impact on cycle routing engines over the next couple of weeks as it is a safer/nicer route than Church Lane from London Road.
IpswichEdits (2024-09-18 21:47:07+00:00): :-) Nice work! Thanks for the update. I agree it's a much safer route than Old London Road. Best regards.
silversurfer83 (2024-09-09 18:42:22+00:00): Moin Jonas :)

du hast darum gebeten, dass sich jemand diese Änderung ansieht. Also:

Den alten Teich nach westen zu schieben und die gleichen nodes für den Neuen zu nutzen ist nicht ganz im Sinne von "keep the history", da der alte Teich ja tatsächlich "vernichtet" wurde und dort nun (endlich) der neue Edeka entsteht. Aber gut.

Du hast eine dates eingetragen. Bei OSM wird ein ISO-Format folgenden Musters verwendet: YYYY-MM-DD 

Happy mapping
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156289536
Jonas Sch (2024-09-16 15:01:00+00:00): Achso okay. Ist doch aber gut, dass ich drann gedacht habe, oder?
Und was ist mit den drei Grünflächen, die ich nicht gelöscht habe?
Jrachi (2024-12-14 16:55:18+00:00): Ciao.
Cosa significa il ruolo platform?
Non è documentato

Ivo
dp7 (2024-12-14 17:51:17+00:00): Ciao, si tratta sicuramente di una svista.
E' una delle possibili voci sui preset di ID, ma non l'ho mai utilizzato (non volutamente !) e sinceramente non so in quali casi ne sia previsto l'uso.
Probabilmente è saltato fuori per errore mentre riordinavo i segmenti della relazione; comunque ho corretto, grazie della segnalazione.
desertivy (2024-09-06 20:14:09+00:00): Zzz
Cayenne17 (2024-11-05 22:44:25+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue sur OpenStreetMap !

Merci pour tes contributions.

Je viens de corriger une petite erreur concernant le tag sens unique qui ne concerne pas les vélos (les double sens cyclable). Le tag c'est pas oneway:bicycle=yes mais c'est plutôt oneway:bicycle=no.

oneway veut dire sens unique. Si c'est défini à oneway:bicycle=yes, ça veux dire que c'est sens unique pour les cyclistes.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:oneway#Exceptions

Moi aussi je suis sur Niort et je contribue sur Niort.
Si tu as des questions, n'hésite pas.

Voici les différents canaux de communications francophone sur OSM : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Canaux_de_contact

Je suis sur Matrix, Discord, Telegram et le forum.openstreetmap.fr
NorthCrab_upload (2024-09-06 20:30:47+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera nadmiarowe informacje. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Paczkomat nie powinien mieć nazwy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12160760350

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
literan (2024-09-07 11:37:11+00:00): name это тег для имен собственных, а не для описаний
Virgile1994 (2024-10-24 12:39:17+00:00): Attention : le réseau Transaltitude n'est que quelques lignes saisonnières à destination des stations de montagne. Les lignes "T" sont des lignes Cars Région Isère (qui correspond à l'ancien réseau Transisère)
map per (2024-09-08 17:13:40+00:00): Wegen review_requested:
Die Änderung sieht gut aus, danke!
HirschKauz (2024-09-07 15:06:05+00:00): Hi! 
Ist bei highway=footway nicht eh bicycle=no implizit?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156292283
Fizzie-DWG (2024-09-07 04:18:52+00:00): Please also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16659
NeisBot (2024-09-06 22:11:15+00:00): Hello Nicolas Brouilly, welcome to OSM, and thank you for your contributions!

I've taken a look at your recent edits and wanted to discuss a few discrepancies I noticed regarding the surrounding environmental features. Specifically, the locations in your edits don't seem to align with the typical geographical characteristics expected in that area. Here are some (max 10) relevant links to the edits:
https://osm.org/node/12160892642
https://osm.org/node/12160892643
https://osm.org/node/12160892646
https://osm.org/node/12160892647
https://osm.org/node/12160892644
https://osm.org/node/12160892645

Could you please take a look?
Looking forward to your response.

#Somewhere
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=156293913
pitscheplatsch (2024-09-09 12:07:26+00:00): Reverted by
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156294815
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156294836
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156294867
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156294886
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156294909
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156294924
SomeoneElse (2024-09-08 14:45:23+00:00): Hello Rupert,
6 days ago you were sent this message: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16645 .  You appear to be ignoring it.  In this changeset (with comment "#hotosm-project-17514 #cydnerthedd #resilience #GreenWales added buildings") you appear to be carrying on the same activity.  Can you please explain what you're actually trying to do?  One thing that I can see is, despite the "added buildings" comment, you have not added any buildings here.
I'd suggest creating a new topic at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86 to explain.
Best Regards,
Andy
rupertmaesglas (2024-09-09 08:40:31+00:00): Hi Andy,
Thanks for the message. I've opened up a topic here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/policy-on-accented-road-placenames-specifically-welsh/72145/3
But I can't understand how to get a reponse, and Frederik mentions that 'I have ignored messages', so it seems I am missing a platform or there are some other crossed wires. Any ideas?
Meanwhile, I'll have a look at this edit here, where perhaps my JOSM crashed halfway through an edit(?). 17514 is for adding placenames to buildings from local knowledge and Historic maps. I have spoken with CJ about this project, which is extremely important/valuable to our local community. You can see some notes on the osm.wiki. organised editing:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Mapio_Lleisiau%27r_Tir/Mapping_Land_Voices_Cymru/Wales
Best,

Rupert
rupertmaesglas (2024-09-09 08:41:52+00:00): Ah yes, Andy,

I have found the problem, and will correct it.

Thanks for your help,

Rupert
rupertmaesglas (2024-09-09 08:42:53+00:00): By the way, I did anything but ignore the message and spent many hours trying to track down these comments. To no avail.

Thanks,

Rupert
SomeoneElse (2024-09-09 08:54:42+00:00): Re " I've opened up a topic" you've actually resurrected a topic from the old forum from 8 years ago!
I've asked the UK c.osm.org moderators to move it to its own new topic.
rupertmaesglas (2024-09-09 12:19:00+00:00): Thank you very much.

Best,

Rupert
Jan Olieslagers (2024-09-07 09:00:43+00:00): Thanks for your efforts. Your addtion of way 1313865372 is unfortunate, it is a double entry! We already had the aerodrome neatly given in way 206012516.  I therefore intend to remove your addtition.
SierraEchoBravo (2024-09-07 09:55:55+00:00): Ok, but merge the details informations before removing mine. those from 206012516 are outdated. The operator is not the "Aeroclub"  but "Mairie de Saint-Laurent de Médoc".
Source: Latest Visual Appraoch Charte  (VAC)  https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/dvd/eAIP_05_SEP_2024/Atlas-VAC/PDF_AIPparSSection/VAC/AD/AD-2.LFDU.pdf

SIA aviation-civile.gouv.fr is french goverment website to air informations data.
SierraEchoBravo (2024-09-07 10:03:43+00:00): Ok Remove my area but update the address, the operator is the "Aeroclub" by delegation of the "Mairie".
sorry for double entry.
SierraEchoBravo (2024-09-07 10:08:21+00:00): I've made the changes
Jan Olieslagers (2024-09-07 11:35:23+00:00): A 1re vue, c'est impeccable maintenant. Un tout grand merci!
Road–Runner (2024-10-12 23:43:50+00:00): Hi Kilian. Ich hab den Weg als aufgelassen gekennzeichnet. Ab UIAA III handelt es sich eh nicht mehr um einen Wanderweg. Siehe auch https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4429957

Passt oder?
silversurfer83 (2024-09-08 12:41:32+00:00): Hello again!

you seem to be very keen on "fixing" tagging. I already mentioned
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
to you. Have you discussed this with the community? Preferably in the tagging section of c.osm.org

Please respond :)

cheers
silversurfer83
nyuhn (2024-09-08 17:34:29+00:00): Hello. I've replaced some tags marked as deprecated on the wiki (for a long time) and which have a well-known way to tag them. I have read Auto Edits code of conduct. I check each object I edit manually.

From my perspective, swapping oil_well with petroleum_well isn't controversial (if the object is indeed a petroleum well). If you think I should have created a forum thread for this case, then that's what I'll do next.
Sorry for a large changeset area.
silversurfer83 (2024-09-09 18:34:54+00:00): Hi
thanks for the quick reply. And I guess I saw a thread in the community scrolling past also. Haven't had the time to read that yet.

I was just checking in to make sure you don't just run a script or something like that on your desired tags. If the community is ok with your work: keep it up :)

cheers
silversurfer83
gurglypipe (2024-10-16 20:36:39+00:00): Parts of this path (such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93075646) are tagged as designation=permissive_footpath, so foot=permissive is the appropriate access tagging — why have you changed it to foot=yes? If the path is indeed a permissive footpath, it should definitely be foot=permissive (and probably also bicycle=permissive if bicycles are allowed at all). See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Permissive_footpaths