Hi,

Looking at the aerial imagery, for example Ripley Close ( osm.org/way/38394100 ), this is clearly a residential street not just parking access. Incorrectly changing almost every named residential street in the northern part of New Addington may have adverse effects on both correct routing and rendering.

Please refer to the relevant pages in the OSM wiki:

osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice
"The highway=service tag denotes ways used for vehicle access to a building, parking lot, service station, business estate, beach, campsite, etc. Service ways are usually not part of the public street network and may sometimes be inaccessible to the general public"

osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dresidential
"The highway=residential tag is used on roads that provide access to, or within, residential areas. While these roads typically allow through traffic, they are not normally used as through routes. Most traffic on a residential road will be for the access to, or from, residential properties."

Do you need any help reverting these changes?

The operator of St. Edmund's Church of England Primary School had been set incorrectly by another mapper as Kent County Council. That isn't your fault.

You accepted the tagging "upgrade" suggestion by Rapid that you change the operator:type from religious to government and added Kent County Council's Wikidata ref. Instead of fixing a problem caused by a tagging error, you chose to hide it instead of resolving the obvious contradiction.

Open data about schools in England is available from the government's "Get Information About Schools" service.
https://get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/130948

osm.org/way/967534396

Please fix your error.

(Review requested)

Thanks for updating this. You'll also need to add shop=fishing so that data consumers know what it is - see osm.wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfishing

There are several sections of the A429 Bearsted Road which had been tagged in error with crossing=no.

Rapid suggested that you add crossing:markings=no + crossing:signals=no, which you did without considering whether this could be correct (no, it couldn't). This didn't fix the problem, but it might have hidden it from someone else.

If you're unquestioningly accepting every suggested tagging "upgrade", you're not "fixing various issues", you're effectively making an automated/mechanical edit of questionable value.

The number of objects edited in each changeset also makes it hard to find how many errors are hidden amongst the hundreds of correct tagging suggestions.

Bearsted Road actually fixed in
osm.org/changeset/165371890

I haven't spotted any mass deletions of buildings, which hopefully would be flagged by OSMCha. If there are any areas where you're reasonably sure you added buildings which are now missing, it should be possible to find out - see osm.wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_API_by_Example#OSM_data_at_a_certain_date

Apart from "the editor suggested it and you did it without question", why did you delete crossing=unmarked here? Not only is aerial imagery available showing that there aren't any crossing markings, but unlike you, I've actually been there and surveyed it.

osm.org/node/9926313735

(Review requested)

Looks fine to me, thanks for updating it.

Are you sure that City of Westminster College is operated by Westminster City Council, because they're under the impression that it's United Colleges Group.

osm.org/way/288304682

Blindly accepting the suggested "upgrades" suggested by Rapid/iD is not QA and it's not fixing issues. It hides potential issues and created new ones.

When iD suggested a tag "upgrade" adding operator:type=private to an NHS hospital, why did you accept this when it was obviously wrong?

I've raised an issue for iD making the suggestion to "upgrade" Great Ormond Street Hospital by adding operator:type=private. However, a poor suggestion from a QA tool is not an excuse to add information which is obviously wrong.

https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/issues/1528

I also see that you've added operator:type=private to Great Ormond Street Hospital. Was the error here yours, or a defective suggestion by the iD editor?
osm.org/way/548533106

What's the point of adding crossing:markings=yes, other than "the iD told you it was a good idea"? If you can see what the markings are, please tag appropriately. Telling data consumers that "this marked crossing is marked" isn't particularly useful.

(Reverted, obviously)

Also, please explain why you believe the source which you failed to understand has a licence compatible with OSM:

"All content on this website ©1996-2016 Nuffield Health or used under licence. This website is protected by copyright. It is published by Nuffield Health and may not be reproduced other than when downloaded and viewed on a single device for private use only. It is not to be otherwise reproduced or transmitted or made available on a network without the prior written consent of Nuffield Health. All other rights reserved. "

https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/terms/nuffield-health-website-terms-and-conditions

Where did you get the idea that the entire Barts Hospital site is operated by Nuffield Health, not the NHS?

I had a quick look and it looks fine.

If you'd like, I can undelete the original track which you added and add those tags.

Deleted again in osm.org/changeset/165210310

Referred to DWG.

The paths were already tagged correctly with foot=private, so adding access=no was pointless. At least this changeset was mostly harmless, unlike your others.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/165221258

(Review requested)

You need to add a tag to tell data consumers what sort of object this is, which in this case is highway=track

You could also add tags describing the width (in metres) and surface type, see:
osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
osm.wiki/Key:surface
osm.wiki/Key:tracktype
osm.wiki/Key:width