The relations I created around Maryland are now history.
osm.org/changeset/120900248

While I think the purpose of roles in the relations (which I created some time ago) has been misunderstood, I don't think associatedStreet relations are particularly useful in this area.

The relations are probably better off being deleted rather than remaining unmaintained and now broken.

What is your source for the spurious bicycle prohibition at the Hullbridge Road, South Woodham Ferrers bus gate? There was no prohibition in place on Saturday and local council minutes from 2021-07-07 mention a "bus and cycle sign" at E215 (this will be TSRGD diagram 953, with "taxi" omitted).
https://www.southwoodhamferrerstc.gov.uk/_UserFiles/Files/_Minutes/128321-20210707__Environment_Minutes_b.pdf

It's both an amenity and a building. While the use of the building has changed from an under-used exhibition space (tagged as tourism=attraction) to the new City Hall (amenity=townhall), it hasn't ceased to be a building. I swim in front of it regularly and will notice if that changes.

I have. They claimed not to have deleted the cycleway (!), so I undeleted those ways.

You may not have intended to delete it, but this changeset clearly shows that you did delete it. See (e.g.) v2 of osm.org/way/826036636/history

Undeleted in
osm.org/changeset/118594882

Has the cycleway crossing at the Lampton Road/Bath Road junction been physically removed?

The cycleway and crossing you added at the Lampton Road/Bath Road junction have just been deleted by @BorekSigar in osm.org/changeset/118424018

As they already have form for deleting extant objects, I doubt the features have really been removed, but I won't have time to get over that way to check any time in the near future.

While there may have been overlapping natural=wood polygons, the names were not duplicates. What is your source for the names being "promoted" to the enclosing polygon - it certainly isn't the Maxar Premium Imagery cited in the changeset.

@nlme thanks for spotting and fixing this.

Why add layer=-1 to highways which clearly are not underground?

I've now added tags for species etc., although they should be checked by someone with more horticultural knowledge than me.

I'm discussing the idea with @syonist of adding more standard tags to the named trees (species, species:en, species:wikidata, etc.) in the hope that it makes it more useful for future data consumers.

The fact you have *added* individual trees in osm.org/changeset/116383073 rather contradicts whatever point you may have had. I am reverting your deletions.

Are/were you Mapper50, by any chance?

Yes, you can use tags like species=*, leaf_type=*, leaf_cycle=* on a natural=wood or landuse=forest=* object. You can't meaningfully use them on leisure=park.

The trees which you deleted in this changeset do not fall within the mapped natural=wood polygons and are clearly visible as individual trees in Bing aerial imagery. Several of them also correspond to trees in the tree data supplied by LB Hounslow to the Greater London Authority in 2018 (as open data).

I am struggling to find any legitimate justification for the deletion. Perhaps you can point me to the relevant article in the wiki?

That's not really the point. Another mapper has taken the time to map those trees, and in your other mass deletion, to identify the species (although not with species=* etc.). Whether you or I think that mapping them as individual nodes is necessary is neither here nor there.

Do the trees exist?

Do the trees exist?

Trees removed in osm.org/changeset/116382236 by new mapper @BorekSigar

Hi, many thanks for updating OSM.

Please could you move the gates from the intersections of Downland Close/Cadbury Close with High Road to their actual locations on the service roads, unless the gates are really on High Road itself? This might cause a problem for routing software otherwise.

osm.wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dgate