Temporary restrictions should be implemented with conditional restrictions, particularly as you may not be in a position to revert this. I have reverted it and added a fixme for a local mapper to check changeset/154343962

I don't know why you fel that deleting a parking aisle here would help the busmiles router snap journeys to roads. Reverted in changeset/154343747

There was no legitimate reason to delete the access road to the school car park. Reverted in changeset/154343591

Reverted. Adding motor_vehicle=no to a school car park's access road was unhelpful. The correct tag would probably be access=private (no and private are not synonyms, although they are often used as if they were).

Thanks for reverting this. I'm trying to exterminate the rest of the damaging edits by @MKBE_

They've made some edits which are probably harmless geometry changes like minor realignments, so it'll take a while.

This may give you an idea of the quality of their editing https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions-info?uid=21272584

Current mood re their edits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

Now reverted in changeset/154343220

@MKBE_ maybe you shouldn't have made so many damaging, unverifiable and incorrect edits? They're easy to spot with QA software, so even if you create a less obvious sock puppet than @MKBE_2, you'll still waste the time of a lot of real human beings (not bots) who care about the integrity and accuracy of OSM data for ALL of its data consumers.

Deleting almost all the tags, including the name, from roads would have no useful effects on the routing algorithms used by busmiles. It is highly detrimental to other OSM data consumers. Reverted in changeset/154342422

Deleting all this information doesn't help routing for the busmiles snap to roads feature.

Reverted.

Erasing the name, surface, speed limit and street lighting information from Corporation Street would have had no influence on the router used for the busmiles snap to highway feature. I would have had adverse effects for all other OSM data consumers.

Reverted in changeset/154341209

There was no need to delete almost all the tags from that section of Oxford Street. Reverted in changeset/154340980

I've added a note and a fixme for a local mapper to check whether this is now two way for all vehicles, or just for buses.

There's no evidence from Bing aerial or street side imagery that this is really one way. Reverted.

Thanks. I meant to come back and check on progress there, but didn't quite get round to it. I've closed the associated notes.

I'm not convinced that busmiles would endorse breaking routing for everyone else. I'm also pretty sure that the three "BUS ONLY" markings on the approach visible in aerial imagery are not graffiti.

Reverted in changeset/154331528

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You don't need to add house numbers using the name tag, because they are not names and they are already tagged (and displayed on the map) with addr:housenumber

name=*#When_not_to_use

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Although adding oneway=no to a road is harmless, it doesn't actually change anything as that is the default for roads. There are cases where it can be helpful, as explained in the OSM wiki.
oneway=*

If you are experiencing problems with routing software, this may not solve them unless the router is badly broken. If it does, there is always the chance that another mapper will remove the oneway=no tag as unnecessary in the future. If you need help, it may be worth asking in the OSM Community Forum.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/

(already reverted by other users)

Setting access=yes on the road to Imber is not only incorrect, but is incredibly irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Reverted.

Thanks. I was about to post something to the forum, but as you do tact and diplomacy infinitely better than I do...

I DO know, and access=yes is not the correct way to tag a pedestrian zone which prohibits motor vehicles and had a signed list of exceptions.

https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=50.906948%7E-1.404601&lvl=21.3&mo=om.1&pi=-2.8&style=x&dir=351.5