This has a note tag with "This section of road prohibits all motor vehicles other than buses", yet you *still* deliberately set it to motor_vehicle=yes? Reverted.

It wasn't but it is now.

That wasn't OSM's problem, until you added a fictitious access restriction. Reverted.

Maybe it does, but it still exists. Restored.

Adding access=yes to a street which has "no motor vehicles" signs (with exceptions) effectively turned Drapery into a through route for all transport modes. However, it did not have access tags which matched the signed restrictions before you edited it either. Hopefully this is now correct.

The Bing street side imagery showing the restriction signs is at https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=52.238538%7E-0.897411&lvl=19.8&mo=om.1&pi=-11.1&style=x&dir=136.9

Mini-roundabouts (traversable centre, road marking per TSRGD diagram 1003.4) are tagged as nodes rather than as circular ways as routing software needs to be able to differentiate between them. I realise that it is tempting to re-map them so that they look better on the map, but it is incorrect and unhelpful to data consumers. Reverted.

Mini-roundabouts (traversable centre, road marking per TSRGD diagram 1003.4) are tagged as nodes rather than as circular ways as routing software needs to be able to differentiate between them. I realise that it is tempting to re-map them so that they look better on the map, but it is incorrect and unhelpful to data consumers. Reverted.

Unfortunately adding in incorrect access=yes tag to the Luton Dunstable Busway could have adverse effects on other data consumers. Reverted in osm.org/changeset/154376239

Mini-roundabouts (traversable centre, road marking per TSRGD diagram 1003.4) are tagged as nodes rather than as circular ways as routing software needs to be able to differentiate between them. I realise that it is tempting to re-map them so that they look better on the map, but it is incorrect and unhelpful to data consumers. Reverted.

Mini-roundabouts (traversable centre, road marking per TSRGD diagram 1003.4) are tagged as nodes rather than as circular ways as routing software needs to be able to differentiate between them. I realise that it is tempting to re-map them so that they look better on the map, but it is incorrect and unhelpful to data consumers. Reverted.

The whole point of the Luton Dunstable Busway is that general traffic is excluded, so access=yes would rather defeat the point. Reverted.

Reverted and repaired. A section of road with clear "BUSES ONLY" road markings cannot be access=yes,.

The tagging you probably wanted here is access=customers. A petrol station forecourt with motor_vehicles=no seems unlikely. Reverted.

Thanks for adding the bridges. Original access tagging of motor_vehicle=permit reinstated in osm.org/changeset/154360323

Reverted and updated. It is correct now.

No, it was mapping for the renderer. Reverted in osm.org/changeset/154344167

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 osm.org/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 osm.org/changeset/154343747

There was no legitimate reason to delete the access road to the school car park. Reverted in osm.org/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).