Also ts2526a

None of that changes the fact that replacing "Fix member role." with something that described what you did would be helpful.

What about the northbound signage?

It'd be ever so helpful if the changeset comment was "Fix member role of (way number name or description) in (relation number name or description".

Two points:
a) this is not a "road alignment" change it's an armchair change from unclassified to tertiary
b) based on survey, tertiary is not justified here.
I'll revert this and some others; please discuss any such future changes in the forum on a case by case basis.

Could you perhaps explain a bit more about the change to https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/1305133832 here? "cycle access" doesn't really explain it.
What was the source of your edit?

Regarding the English name, the airport's own website https://sofia-airport.eu/en/about-us/history/ suggests that the English name is "Sofia Airport". Maybe the website was mostly written before the rename, but you'd think that it would get a mention at https://sofia-airport.eu/en/about-us/history/ .
The removal of these names in changeset/178952040 seems silly because airports really _do_ have verifiable names in many languages.
If you can't reach an agreement between yourselves, perhaps try the forum?
Best Regards
Andy (from the DWG)

Reverted in changeset/179769897 . If anyone wants to make a map with this in they can use Overpass and date the query to yesterday.

The Ring of Gullion way had a bit of a gap in it so I filled it in in changeset/179663186
Cheers,
Andy

Thanks for reverting

The car park building is visible under construction from Esri and Mapbox imagery, but was actually completed a couple of years ago. The car park extends west out of the building.

It is unclear how the parking aisle crosses Steeton Brook; my guess is that that is completely covered now (I didn't look).

I saw no indication of any charging suggesting it is free. https://www.yorkshire.com/sutton-in-craven/parking/steeton-silsden also suggests free but council map has a misnamed pay car park located here. Previous OSM status was pay.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
If the things that you are drawing are rectangular - and I'm guessing that way/1482610940 etc. are - you can square them up by pressing "q" in the editor.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
This really doesn't make sense as a "proposed" feature. See the caveats on proposed=* for more details about what sort of "proposed" things make sense in OSM.
I'd suggest deleting it from OSM, but it's worth noting that even after you do that you'll still be able to query it with Overpass (just use a date before it was deleted). If you want a representation on a map, something like uMap would be ideal for you.
Best Regards,
Andy
(from OSM's Data Working Group - Ticket#2026022810000289)

Ha - well, the current state can be seen at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/2954c6ef-1c9b-4322-97b0-9da37777c139~1.jpg . One of the 166 references has been stickered over, one hasn't (or perhaps the sticker fell off or was removed).

Siempre que haya fronteras internacionales en cuestión, definitivamente vale la pena discutirlo en el foro https://community.openstreetmap.org/ en lugar de solo usar discusiones de conjuntos de cambios; de esa manera, más personas estarán al tanto.

Whenever international boundaries are in question, it's definitely worth discussing in the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/ rather than just using changeset discussions - that way more people will be aware of it.

I guess it was important when it was a PIRATA buoy, but what is it important for now (assuming it's not at the bottom of the Atlantic, which alas is likely)

Hello,
You've undeleted it as "disused", but are you sure that there is something still there? The links on changeset/154996123 suggest "missing, presumed sunk".
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I suspect that the highway=steps tag got accidentally removed from way/687378500/history . I've re-added it - hope that is OK
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks for filling in this gap. I'm assuming that the other two cycle routes also follow this path, which gives as relation/1318928#map=16/51.54373/-2.63821 , relation/9540148#map=17/51.544247/-2.640468 and relation/5479822#map=17/51.544340/-2.639309 . Does that look OK?