The previous alignment was closer to the GPX tracks I walked -- I think there's probably an offset to the imagery.

They are traced from Bing and could be considered "indicative" :-)

Near Wooten Road, the track looks like it goes through the corner of a garden and maybe somthing like a substation / gas small green box (on Bing).

Maybe its old imagery?

Look like a bad idea to delete carefully surveyed on the ground routes using Strava copyrighted information.

Or maybe also add a man_made=bridge drawn "underneath" with a "real" name -- in case it gets deleted again?

See osm.wiki/Key:crossing#Accessibility

Good job on the euro route, but ncn 4 looks very short now?

Your edit broke two major cycle routes:
osm.org/relation/1318928
and
osm.org/relation/5479822

Please fix if you can. If not see if I can.

See https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=ca3a2823-7b40-45fd-9bf8-9a2d81ebd11a&cp=51.497696~-2.690709&lvl=19&dir=299.52963&pi=-14.200873&style=x&mo=om.1~z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027

Inside lane doesn't enter the roundabout - so mapping as a separate way (even though there is no physical separation) as wer're not allowed "tangents" to roundabouts.

The wiki is supposed to document best practice and de facto mapping styles - it’s obviously missing the idea of micro mapping islands and geometry. I think there’s probably a reasonable approach that will match both the macro and micro mapping styles - I’ll try that and see how it goes. I’ll also try to fix the routing issue that your edit has caused.

I’m sure the land use changes are fine.

Hit and run edits that don’t match local mapping styles don’t have local knowledge aren’t always helpful - local mappers have to be able to keep stuff up to date in the long term.

Why? You're deleting useful info -- it may not be relevant to you but the number of lanes was a physical fact -- you can see it on Mapillary.

If you have any excuse then please explain yourself.

I cnsider these edits to be vandalising the map and removing useful changes. You are removing islands and road flares that exist and have been carefully surveyed.

if you have any reasonable excuse then please explain yourself.

Ok, if you have any reasonable excuse then please explain yourself.

I cnsider these edits to be vandalising the map and removing useful changes -- I have reverted it. You are removing islands and road flares that exist and have been carefully surveyed.

Added back a few good bits.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.54260749415042&lng=-2.6348403568245127&z=17&pKey=SJCh9Ry-zV6E82sVlTwzJA&focus=photo

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.54126844787473&lng=-2.631421718792012&z=14.918503348990576&pKey=qO2rk5OU1CSJNp6o3KDwSQ&focus=photo

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.53956363100775&lng=-2.6252732613510523&z=17&pKey=ZT5S4I2n1HqEzmmoEe_oJQ&focus=photo

You need to adjust your imagery to match the current map rather than just drawing outside of the parking area.

It’s planned by the council but the responsible developer is not proposing to build it. Should be deleted.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/incredibly-frustrating-delay-50m-bristol-4870185

You're removing/changing stuff that was carefully surveyed on foot -- at least check on Mapillary before modifying things -- will revert items as necessary (again).

Ok, so you moved the info to a newer building that doesn't really have that name. If it's really obvious it isn't a typo, then just add a note -- don't just modify it -- let local mappers check.

I'm only grumpy because this is the second time you've modified stuff without a survey that wasn't obviously wrong.