Hi
way/1083452572
I'm pretty sure this isn't all a pond. Could you check/correct please.

"This is a PUBLIC FOOTPATH. It's not "private", except to vehicles. "
In which case it there's no requirement for access=no, as highway=footway defines the access restriction.

To check, did you verify each object individually within JOSM?

Instead of using area["name"="Great Britain"]; use
area(id:3600058447,3600058437,3600058446); // England, Wales, Scotland

The GB relation excludes all islands around the country (IoW & Anglesey etc)

It's closed, not removed. It will reopen after the renovations.

You should have used the access=no tag.
access=*

https://snipboard.io/riE1S4.jpg

Hi
Please be aware Roads are not a continuous maxspeed.
Woolley Village is twenty.
https://snipboard.io/0pOsht.jpg

Hi
Why have you deleted this footpath?
https://osmlab.github.io/changeset-map/#137494238

way/539895027/history

Do you have any documentary evidence?

I'll interpret that flippant response as "I can't justify it as a type"

Struggling to see that as anything other than barrier=gate, material=metal, colour=green. & not a 'type'

Hi
node/4534108921/history

To check, did you mean barrier=turnstile

What does gate_type=Derwent Aqueduct mean? You tagged a few, some starting with "Possibly..."

Please don't tag incorrectly to suit a specific rendering.
A prow_ref isn't a formal name. What do you do when there is a formal name?
There are published & well used tags to define PROWs: designation=*#Public_Rights_of_Way_in_England_and_Wales

Hi
Please don't duplicate prow_ref tag values in the name tag. 'FP 81' is not a name.

way/22868349/history#map=17/51.23126/-0.31874

Hi
Please don't duplicate prow_ref tag values in the name tag. 'CW3' is not a name.

way/499932851/history#map=14/51.3265/1.0096

Hi
Please don't duplicate prow_ref tag values in the name tag. 'Ashley FP8' is not a name.

way/464148836/history

Hi
Is the name in this & other paths you amended actually the PROW reference?
Would be better using the prow_ref tag instead?

Hi
On the premise 'OSM shouldn't be a database dump', what is the purpose of your additions such as heritage & heritage:operator?

@HellMap (and @tux67 & Carnildo)
So, by your own admission Your argument is straw man. *All* of the errors were in existence prior to these edits. These edits created no errors. The only reason you've become aware of these errors & thnk MapComplete is a solution to fixing them is due to edits occurring. Discussing them before hand wouldn't have enlightened you. If there are errors, fix them; instead of moaning about other edits which improve the quality of the OSM database.

@ZeLonewolf
As the edits haven't created errors, only tidied up deprecated tags that have already been discussed at length, what's your logic for "getting mad"? Communities should assess on quality, not quantity.

Auto/bot/mechanical edits amend one tag on one type of object. If (& it's a big if) there are amendments to other objects they stand out like sore thumbs. edits are much more likely to be erroneously missed where a contributor changes multiple tags on multiple different objects, even if it's only over a small area.

It's disappointing to see OSM is attracting people who are not really interested in its primary purpose of providing *accurate* data to create maps, but just here to 'manage the process'.

Please remember this anti mass edit ruling was created, in a display of blatant 'do as we say, not as we do' arrogance, by those who oversaw the crap Tiger import in the US & yet couldn't be bothered to fix it.

Excellent.
As it's serving two tracks should the platform be split in two? Ref=1. ref=2?