I don't see it saying anywhere that barrier=lift_gate is not for level crossing barriers. A UK level crossing's lifting barrier gates is literally the picture used to illustrate the tag.

Are you trying to tag for a router?

I didn’t add the highway crossing tag. There is a history feature you can use to check which changeset made an edit.

As with the other edits you’ve commented on, this was from over 3 years ago. I’ve taken the advice on board quite some time ago. I’m not sure what purpose repeatedly making this exact same point on quite old edits serves?

A single bridge can have multiple ways across it... if you want to mark the bridge itself, there is the man_made=bridge tag which can be applied to an area. I've added Whafe Bridge, and moved the cycleway, which was inaccurately mapped.

It is possible for paths to go up and down embankments, especially at an angle…

Yes, but not the infrastructure marks on lamposts, the distance markers, the start of motorway signs.

On the other hand, the whole “A666(M)” seems to have come about because of a single sign that said “A666” instead of “(A666)” (as it now does).

As a non-sign official source, try "The M61 Motorway (Kearsley Spur) (Speed Limit) Regulations 1999".

Signs are a primary on-the-ground source, and there are many signs, including infrastructure signs.

If you are suggesting the signs are wrong, then feel free to put forward alternative sources.

A quick Google however suggest it is the Network Rail strategic route code.

No idea, as I didn’t add that. This edit was probably a join with another way and the property in question would have been inherited.

The railway tags tend to clash with the footpath or cycleway tags somewhat… did you copy all the railway information across when deleting the separate ways?

The dip was because it was only partially corrected - it was where the correctly aligned section met the incorrectly aligned.

It was a realignment to be closer to the correct geometry as shown on OS Opendata. It is currently a very badly wrong geometry.

I was demerging, not merging - those dates were on there from the previous merge. way/160291839/history

Crief Junction was also the name of the junction in Crief.

Lovers Walk Depot?

Yes, it really is:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_Lovers_Walk_Traction_and_Rolling_Stock_Maintenance_Depot

I do understand how they look similar, but railway=disused on its own is ambiguous (similar for railway=abandoned) and could be referring to rail, or maybe even a station. Hence this tagging convention.

That’s not unnecessary - that’s the correct tagging to show what kind of railway the disused railway is (=rail, =narrowgauge, etc.

Please see the wiki, and reinstate the tagging.

There are numerous examples of where logical distinct elements follow the same path - a road with a cycleway next to it, or a railway bridge that also carries a footpath over a road.

They are mapped distinctly. Tags like name or ref or service might apply to more than one of them - similarly nodes like gates might impact one but not the other.

I’m afraid I disagree - I don’t believe this is incorrect.