I've also added it to the NCN753 relation, based on the name that you've used - you can see that at relation/2293737#map=17/55.647546/-4.813240 . Does this new route replace the old one through town or is it in addition to it?

I've also added it to the NCN753 relation, based on the name that you've used - you can see that at relation/2293737#map=17/55.647546/-4.813240 . Does this new route replace the old one through town or is it in addition to it?

Hello,
I've filled in a gap in the Ayrshire Coastal Path at relation/1756394#map=19/55.647923/-4.814366 - it seems logical that this is where it goes.
Best Regards,
Andy

See https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-February/030061.html , and changeset/126152086

Hello,
Not sure if it was this edit or not, but it looks like relations to NCN2 here fell foul of some of the bugs in iD where you can't see which relation you're adding to (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/id-visibility-of-relations/138374/2 ). The eastbound route was added to the superrelation relation/1950688 rather than the local section relation/13725878 . I've filled in the gap.
Cheers,
Andy

Oops - it looks like this introduced a gap in the Lea Valley Walk relation. It added a new bit of footpath that wasn't part of the relation. I've filled it in in changeset/177093285 .
Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
Just for info (and I know it can be a pain when you're typing in values on your phone) - "accommodation" is spelt with 2 "m"s...
Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
Adding this created a gap in the Rochdale_Way 2596108. I've filled it in.
Cheers,
Andy

And also way/1461940070/history

And also way/1461940076/history

And also way/1461940073/history

Same applies to way/1461940075/history (also not sure why it is a tunnel, also lots of broken relations)

I don't know that there _isn't_ a TRO on it, but information from 3 years ago likely isn't going to help there.

See even though https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#22/51.70244/-1.27703/H/P for the LA PRoW view. Their PF stops at the gate (as is to be expected).

Hello,
There's now a tiny gap in relation/9058875#map=23/51.49475585/-0.12439015&layers=S .
Cheers,
Andy
For info see also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/id-visibility-of-relations/138374/21 )

Oops - I think that this might have introduced a gap in the Greensand Way. I filled it in in changeset/175276055 .
It's really an iD bug - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/id-visibility-of-relations/138374 .
Cheers,
Andy

Oops - in here you accidentally added some ways to one of the EV1 superrelations relation/2763798 (I've removed it now). It's actually really hard to tell in iD which relation is which; the only reliable way I've found of doing it is to know the relation ID beforehand and search for it by number.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/id-visibility-of-relations/138374 has more about the problem.

Hello,
node/478157148 is a gate, and the new way way/39864664 connects directly to it. Does it join north or south of the gate (I'm guessing that it's one of the two and Vespucci has just merged it onto a nearby node).
Also, I suspect that some of the relation relation/23309#map=19/51.673309/-0.867396 needs trimming to where the footpath starts.
Best Regards,
Andy

A value of "no;yes" on node/12436861257/history is clearly silly. I have set it back to the previous value before you edited it, which was "no".

You introduced a couple of typos here "yesx" - I've fixed them to "yes".