You're changeset says that the driveway is named "Access road" - that doesn't look like a name, but rather a desciption (which doesn't need to be tagged because it's obvious from context). The access=private tag might be appropriate.

Do you know whether Princes Street or Princess Street is correct? I'd be surprised if it's both, but I don't know which it is.

Surely Mill Common isn't oneway - it's a no through road.
I've removed the oneway tag in 93356498 - let me know if I've got it wrong somehow.

I think you put the traffic_signals tagging on the wrong node.

Hmm, I thought I'd already made a change to reflect the different locations of the temporary and new slip roads, but I can't find that so I'll have to assume I'm misremembering.

One issue: you've disconnected the entrance to the Travelodge from the slip road

What are you trying to achieve here and in changesets 92060270 and 92059383? "Increase complexity" is not a good target in itself. It looks like you've split lots of ways into several short sections, and added a lot of spurious (and unecessary) turn restrictions. There are also a lot of missing oneway tags, and some missing links and excess links.

In general, I think hatched road markings in the centre aren't enough to justify mapping a road as a dual carriageway. A physical island might be enough in some cases (though not if it's just a single tiny traffic island). Also, I think it's usually better not to try mapping separate ways for all possible movements (though I have made that mistake myself in the past).

You also broke the continuity of several bus route relations. I haven't checked whether they have been fully repaired yet.

I think it might be best to revert these changesets, and then start again with any improvements that are worth readding.

This was still tagged badly - the farmland tags hadn't been restored, the proposed police hub is not a commercial use, and it will only occupy a part of the existing farmland area.
I think I've improved this in changeset/93355723.

This change is incorrect. A road can be marked as no-entry at one end without any part of it being oneway. I think it's only oneway if it's marked with a white arrow on a blue rectangular sign at the entrance. In this case there is also a sign on Fitzwilliam Street marking it as explicitly twoway.

Even if the road were oneway to general traffic, the no entry sign has a clear exemption for cyclists, so you would have needed to also tag it oneway:bicycle=no

The no entry restriction is either mapped with short section of oneway tagging at on end (as was already done here), or more accurately by using no_entry turn restrictions. As a general note, the mapping community in Cambridge has done a very good job of mapping twoway roads with no entry restrictions as such, so I think warnings in tools like improveosm are likely to be false positives.

I've reverted this changeset in changeset/93355143. Have you made any other changes like this one?

I notice that the adjacent footpath has been inappropriately named "Permanent diversion", and also seems to be lacking connectivity at the south end. It also comes very close to another footpath near Thornhill Place, but isn't currently connected to that.
Are you able to check the connectivity of this path and fix any issues with it?
Thanks!

This looks like it's mostly an improvement. However, you seem to have left platforms 2+3 rather squint relative to the adjacent tracks - perhaps you could try to improve the alignment a bit.

Hi Mark, welcome to OpenStreetMap

In this changeset you seem to have made changes in several different locations. Unfortunately this makes it very hard for people to work out what you've actually changed. From what I can tell, most of this changeset is some new mapping in Zambia, but it also includes a change near Birmingham. Based upon the bounding box, it looks like there is probably also a change somewhere in Asia, but I can't easily see where this is.

Could you clarify what locations this changeset affects? Also, in future it would be helpful if you could ensure that unrelated changes in different places are uploaded as separate changesets.

I've reverted this in changeset/90029800.
I would still like to know why you originally made this change. Responding to comments from fellow mappers is an important part of contributing to OpenStreetMap, and is essential to attaining useful high-quality mapping.

I've returned this to highway=secondary in changeset/89919652, because I think that is much more appropriate. I wouldn't object to this being changed to secondary_link, and/or the reverse direction being changed to a matching classification.

Reverted in 90028115

I think "normal" in that sentence means "not a _link". The example given in the footnote showed a highway link using a pre-existing unclassified road to join onto a secondary road. The portion of the unclassified road involved was then tagged as a secondary road. (Both roads were changed from secondary to tertiary a couple of months ago, but the same principle still holds).

I think that statement is relating to the case of a simple link with no intermediate junctions, with the instruction being to not choose an arbitrary division point.
I think this point is relevant (from the highway_link page):
"A preexisting street used to connect two major highways is not a link. Instead it should be tagged as the normal highway it previously was, probably equivalent to the lower classification of the ones it connects. This also applies where otherwise minor streets connect highways at an interchange."
And an analogy from the motorway_link page:
"Any other roads used to connect the motorway to a non-motorway, which can also be used by non-motorway traffic, should be tagged as something less than motorway_link, usually the *_link of the non-motorway."

If this is considered to be a pre-existing street, then the wiki would say that 'highway=secondary' is correct. On the other hand, if this isn't a pre-existing street, but the A1307 were a motorway, then the wiki would say 'highway=secondary_link' is correct. I think the reality falls into neither case, so there isn't explicit guidance for this situation, but I don't think the classification should decrease if the classification of the A1307 were raised to a motorway.

So, to conclude, I'd say that either 'highway=secondary' or 'highway=secondary_link' is correct; I think I now favour the latter slightly more.

I think 'secondary' is probably best (though without the ref). (I'm basing this partly upon the various wiki pages for highway links).

I still don't think that works. Using "highway=construction" and "access" tags is ambiguous, and I would normally interpret this to be indicating the access arrangements once the road is open. I had a look at instances of this tagging elsewhere, and it looks like my interpretation is the most common one in the areas I found. If you want to indicate that the access is temporarily restricted, then I would just add appropriate access tags. Your changes also broke Graphopper's cycle routing.

I've mostly reverted your changes (in changeset/89936254) because I still think the tagging is wrong (and routing was visibly broken). It might be possible to improve the accuracy of the tags at each end of Histon Road, but the way you tried doing it doesn't quite work. Personally I'd favour just leaving it tagged as open because the short stretch of inaccuracy doesn't affect anywhere that someone would actually want to drive to or from.

Oops, I failed to add a comment.
Revert changesets 89635942, 89634946, 89579256, and add a slightly different tagging to Histon Road to indicate that the closure is temporary.

I disagree. And even if they should be the same, I think 'unclassified' is the wrong tag for the northbound sign, since it's main role is as a slip road from a motorway onto a secondary road.