The purpose of the OSM wiki is to document how people map, not to tell them how to map.
Did you discuss this edit beforehand as per osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct ?
If not, then your actions are actively making OSM worse for editors and data consumers, not better.

Rather than saying "healthcare fixed" it would be much better to explain what you've changed things from, what you've changed they to and why you've changed it.

healthcare=osteopath is a tag that people actually consume: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/healthcare=osteopath#projects . Your unexpected tagfiddling here could result in things disappearing from maps.

However, old maps suggest a slightly different story.
An Ordnance Survey Town Plan of 1889 https://maps.nls.uk/view/231287205 suggests "Pope's Head Alley" for the eastern one and "Peter Lane Passage" for the western.
An earlier OS Town Plan from 1851 https://maps.nls.uk/view/231287106 also has "Pope's Head Alley" for the eastern one but no name for the western.
It's possible that the OS got confused in the 19th century, but it's also possible that strict modern naming rules weren't adhered to.

... beyond local knowledge I don't know of a license-compatible source for either. The Eastern one is often referred to (in incompatible-with-OSM sources, including Mark W Jones' "Snickelways of York" book) with a name, and a search for that name finds news articles describing it as "the most well-used off-grid free toilet in York".

Thanks!

Hello,
Are you sure way/1080694372 is a tunnel? It doesn't look like one (see also note/287651 ).

@Comino - ja, @JeroenHoek heeft hier gelijk. Als je het met meer mensen wilt bespreken, kun je dat doen op het forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/nl/43 .

@Comino - yes, @JeroenHoek is correct here. If you'd like to discuss it with more people you can do that in the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/nl/43 .

Thanks - I've added a note at note/4607601 so that hopefully someone local should see it.

Great - thanks!

Correct - there's no gate now. There was about a year ago, when it was closed for flood defence works. Someone spotted that the road had reopened about 3 months ago, and when I was there just before Christmas that bit of road was fully open (and the pub seemed to have had a much-needed lick of paint). I've removed the gate.

Thanks - this, and "Cork No. 5 ED" reappeared in the database.

@alain2003 - OK, thanks - let me know if you need the DWG to pick up any reverts.

Thanks - I was unaware that we'd had an explicit "no" from the data source.

I did (earlier today or yesterday) privately suggest to wait a bit longer for a reply. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
I suspect that it will be a lot of work to undo the mess now, going either forward or backward.

The options for tidying up from here are a manual fix of each relation one at a time, adding all the missing pieces (which is a lot of work), or a "big revert" of everything - both the initial import and the osm-revert attenpts. The "big revert" with tools that actually workwill only work if there has not been much other editing in the mean time, and analysing the data will be a lot of work.

Where there are many interlinked changes, osm-revert is a terrible choice for undoing changes.
Please do not use it in situations like this.

As I understand it, the licence situation is that the licence under which this data was published isn't compatible with OSM. We (the DWG) suggested asking for a waiver. I believe that an email was sent asking for a waiver, but I don't believe that it was followed up.
At best, the haste behind these reverts underestimates the time it takes bureaucracies to reply.

Somewhat related to the lack of response from Maziar Soltanpour here, there's been a block on that account: osm.org/user_blocks/17148 .

Hello,
After the change here, there,s a gap in the Offaly Way at relation/4112772#map=17/53.201926/-7.725653 . I'm guessing the path is blocked - do you know if the Offaly Way has been rerouted?
Best Regards,
Andy