I can only see what you have written here :)
Were the edits to bridges etc. made after survey, or with aerial imagery, or something else?

Hello VARVAR8,
If "OSMOSE gave you a list of errors" please do NOT change data because of what it says. As Osmose's website https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr makes very clear: "In no case Osmose-QA should provide you the absolute right way to map, always keep a critical eye".
Your poor quality mapping has caused many people (including the DWG) considerable amount of work in the past.
Can you please explain in more detail what changes you made in this changeset changeset/149024785 and why you made those changes?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

If a project offers explicit support (even if only generic rendering) it still makes sense to contact them as likely a code change is warranted if a combination is no longer in OSM.
For example, if you search https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/office#values for "funeral_director" you'll see two values that probably mean the same thing. If one gets consolidated into the other (probably the singular into the plural, to mirror "shop") then a code change would still make sense to reduce the amount of processing that happens to OSM data before display. It doesn't matter that "office=funeral_director" and "office=funeral_directors" are very likely to be processed in the same way; if a tag "goes missing" I still need to find out why because it might have been renamed to an unexpected tag that I don't currently process (something or think means something else).

> And I did it.

Where was this? I don't remember seeing a message about this change here.

> But if app lists shop=* catchall rather than using specific tag values then contacting them is very unlikely to be useful.

Indeed - but I don't think that anyone is suggesting that?

To be clear, until https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/commit/73f06e837d4792a4d9da939cb0e661472e595772 that repository was listed as an explicit consumer of "shop=guns" (not just "shop=*").

Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding.
I was suggesting that _you_, as the person who is changing the tags, would as part of the processs where you ask yourself "is this a sensible change and should any other tags be changed" also ask yourself "which applications consume these tag/value combinations and who do I need to notify".

Hello,
As noted at osm.wiki/Tag%3Aaccess%3Ddesignated doesn't actually mean anything. If something is foot=designated, then it is a way that has been specifically designated for foot access. access=designated doesn't actually specify a mode, so makes no sense.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I've removed the name that you added to some access land on Bannau Brycheiniog. It is not called that; that is the name of the national park (of which it forms part).
Are you sure that the other heathland areas here are really called what you have named them here?
Best Regards,
Andy

That PR was a format change only: https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/pull/3375/files - I'm not sure what that has to do with the suggestion that you, as the person changing OSM data, should look and see how tags are used before making changes.
The actual software used to display "who uses what" is irrelevant to that.

I'm not sure what a pull request to nominatim has to do with anything?

Great, thanks!

If a tag disappears and I'm not expecting it to I still need to see why it's gone.

Both ts0740b and ts0752b

There is a feed of changeset comments (and other comments); ChangesetMD can read that.
It might be easier just to process mails as they come in to though - assuming you can receive it on a machine you control?

The value here previously was "multi;q". That obviously means that the user meant "sport=multi" but also that they meant to square the rectangle. Did you manually square these rectangles?

Please "engage brain" when making these changes.
You've changed "craft=joinery" to "craft=joiner" on node/2659961527 but have left the tag "joinery=doors". This is exactly the sort of issue that I raised with you on changeset/139677537 just two months ago. I would have hoped that errors that you acknowledged then would have been avoided in future changes.

This is another example where it would have been nice to know that it was happening. I've commented at osm.wiki/Talk:Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/fix_many_obvious_typos in case that route works; many comments at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=3199858 don't seem to be acknowledged; perhaps you're not reading mails from that account?

Given that you're only replacing one value here It'd be much better if instead of just "fixing unusual departures_board values with a clear replacement" you actually said what you were changing.
It saves people having to hunt through the actual previous values you changed.
Failing to do this is making life harder for consumers of OSM data.

Sigh. Would it really be _that_ difficult to contact consumers of tags that you're replacing, here https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=guns#projects ?
No one's going to object that the replacement here is similar but without a message that a consumed tag is going to go away I have to hunt down why it has gone.

(oops - sorry for commenting from wrong userid)

Thanks for tidying these up.