Bore da, heathland is a bit unlikely in this part of the world. What is your source?

Fiction reverted

Reverted

Transferred to trig point

Reverted, not really a peak

Reverted, this is an arable field. Nothing on historic OS mapping

Reverted, this is an arable field

This is ridiculous, a peak on the side of a mountain?

Also please could you explain you reasons for changing https back to http on this and other changesets? This is a bit of a retrograde step.
Cheers Phil

Changing this to a summit make a mockery of existing more meaningful tags. A summit of 17.15m?

Again this is not a summit in OSM terms, it is merely a spot height. The name Bwlch should give a hint that it is a pass. The name Pen Bwylch.... is very obviously made up, it doesn't make any sense.
Please only add summits that are actual summits to OSM otherwise you are degrading the map for other users.
Cheers Phil

Hi, in OSM terms this is not really a summit. It is just a spot height in the middle of a wood. It does not belong in OSM as a summit.
The name appears to be made up using the name of the wood, there is no evidence of it being the name of the hill.
The database you are using really is not a reliable source of data and contains much that is fiction, we should not be using it as it damages the value of real summits to map users.
Cheers Phil

Hi Peter
The name tag should only be used for an actual name, it is not a place to add miscellaneous notes.
The tagging you have chosen implies the bridge is here already which could mislead map users. If it is only proposed, then tagging it as construction is a little misleading.
Mapping proposed features is not really recommended, there is a good chance this will not happen, so mapping is best left until construction starts.
I am fixing the tagging to prevent map users being misled.
Cheers Phil

It is also a bit unusual to have a designation of public footpath and for cycling to be allowed. Is it maybe a bridleway?
Cheers Phil

HI, this edit has gone very wrong.
Access tags refer to legal access, not an opinion of whether somewhere is suitable.
By adding access=no to this residential road you have prevented people driving, or cycling, or walking to adjacent properties. You are also preventing people from using the two connecting footpaths.

I am reverting this changeset.

Hi, this edit has got me rather confused. Please could you explain what you are trying to acchieve here. What does bridge=low_water_crossing mean on way/682445175 for example. In my experience it is just a bridge.
Cheers Phil

Thank you for replying, please revert these changes but do be careful of conflicts. If you encounter problems do ask for help.

Changes such as this can affect other tags, such as sidewalks or give_way nodes. Making large changes can affect the direction tag on a give_way or the side of the road the sidewalk is on. JOSM should handle these, but if there is a typo and another mapper fixes the typo?

Give me a shout if you need a hand with these reverts.

Cheers Phil

Code of conduct is here
osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Hi, this and your other changesets of this nature appears to be mechanical edits.

Where did you discuss them? What mitigation have you taken to check other objects that depend on the direction of the way?

Why do you see this documented tagging as a problem that needs fixintg?

Cheers Phil

Thank you, useful to know so that I can avoid it in future.