A small tip about fixing errors - check the details of the changeset that introduced those errors. In this case there were a number of mistakes introduced in one changeset (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=50973528), and you only fixed some of those mistakes. Checking the history also allows you to give feedback to people who make mistakes (as I have just done for this particular changeset).

I think I've now reverted all the mistakes in the changeset (aside from those that were already fixed).

You seem to have changed a lot of roads around Dover from highway=tertiary to highway=service. I'm pretty sure that most of these were errors, and you only intended to make changes to the port roads. I have therefore reverted this change in changeset/78448114 for all the roads outside the port that hadn't yet been reverted.

While I'm here, I have a more general remark about your changeset comments. These are often not very descriptive - for example I looked at four different changesets with the changeset comment "Road(s) amended" and saw that they were doing very different things. Better changeset comments in those cases would have been something like "Change roads in Dover Port to highway=service", "Add X road to map", "Update speed limit on part of X road" and "Correct name of X road". i

More precise comments (like those I suggested) make it a lot easier to check what changesets are intended to do without looking at them in detail, and would make it clear that (a) editing the other roads outside the port in this changeset was a mistake; and (b) no other changesets at the same time were doing similar things, so there's no reason to check those changesets for the same sort of mistake.

You've reinstated the name, I think, but I'd like to point out that the existence of another road with the same name 2 miles away definitely does not constitute any evidence at all that a way has been misnamed. Also, in this case it is easy to check that the county's highway records have this as Brampton Road (although they probably still reflect the pre-A14C2H layout).
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/roads-and-pathways/highway-records/

This changset has also added some untagged ways on the coast of The Wash - what is going on there?

Why did you add those tags to only two of the ways in the bypass? Why did you add a random node to one of the ways? What is your source for these restrictions (I think I've heard about them several times, but a clear, authoritative source would be nice). And why does your changeset description include the word "minor"?

Anyway, good spot about the access restrictions; we just need to get this mapped consistently on the whole bypass, and ideally with a reference to a good source that allows people to verify the exact nature of the restrictions.

That road is certainly not a dead end - it leads through to Grafham. I haven't looked into it enough to form a strong opinion, but I think tertiary would be more appropriate for the entire length. (Does the tertiary tag generally mean a C-road classification in the UK? I'm not sure.) I don't agree that marking it as unclassified makes the map 'look more appealing'.

Can you please try to use more descriptive changeset comments? Railway fixes could mean that you're fixing broken ways, or changing incorrect tagging. In this case it seems you're adjusting the geometry of the railway. What source are you using as the basis of your adjustments? Also, you've actually made the alignment noticeably worse in parts - at the northern extent of your changeset the spacing between the track is now very inconsistent, with two of the tracks almost crossing over.

Oh, apologies, I just realised that you didn't mark the roundabouts as open - that was someone else a few hours earlier. In any case, the rest of my comments still apply, and I've now reverted the relevant part of your changeset so I can mark the roundabout as partially closed again.

You marked the roundabouts as open again, whereas many comments on Facebook say that they are still closed. Since you didn't mention that change in your comment, and didn't include a source, I've reverted that in 78184278. This is the second time I've reverted that change since Sunday night (and the third time in total). Please check the changeset history around the A14 works before future edits - there are many people contributing, and it's unhelpful if they keep making the same errors. Also, make sure your changeset description describes *all* of the changes, and if you split it into separate changesets if you're doing multiple separate things remotely, then it makes it easier to revert errors.

What sort of fixes are these - your comment isn't particularly descriptive. Since this is a bunch of independent fixes (as opposed to representing a simultaneous widescale change in the real world), then it might have been clearer to break them down into separate sets of related changes, with helpful comments. It also makes it easier to revert any errors you make.

Looking at the changes, I think there are a few errors here, or places where you've made changes away from a convention I would use:

1. You marked the roundabouts at New Ellington junction as fully open. I've seen various comments from people reporting that they are still not fully open, and I have already reverted their opening once in the past 36 hours. If you'd looked at recent changeset history in the area (e.g. osm.org/history#map=12/52.2842/-0.0233) then you'd have seen that I had a well-sourced changeset marking it as closed again. Given the volume of changes currently happening in the area, I think it is wise to check the changeset history so as not to unnecessarily cause 'edit wars'.

2. You've removed the ref and name from a number of roundabouts. This contrasts with how I would currently tag roundabouts, and what appears to be the local practice, although I am aware that at least one wiki page currently supports your approach.

3. What is your basis for changing the minor road from Brampton across the A14 towards Grafham from 'tertiary' to 'unclassified'?

Does this changeset mean that the Krispy Kreme previously mapped here has closed. You should try to include a changeset comment that makes it clear what the changeset does (e.g. "Krispy Kreme no longer exist in the Grafton Centre"), along with a source tag to indicate how you know this this (e.g. "from a friend who visited last Friday")

You also missed out the A14 EB exit slip at Swavesey - I've added this in changeset/78121338.

A few errors I've corrected, and a query.

First the query: Do you have a source for showing the operator of the A1307 under Spittals interchange as Cambridgeshire County Council? I would have expected the limit of responsibility to be further towards the centre of Huntingdon, but I haven't checked this yet.

The corrections:
You got the junction number for Girton wrong - it's been confirmed by A14C2H on Facebook that Girton interchange will remain J31, and they're still referring to the (temporarily) remaining Dry Drayton slip as J30. Fixed in 78120528.

I'm pretty sure the A1307 on Views Common will be a dual carriageway all the way to the roundabout - that is what is shown in official documents from August, the map from last year, and the prior mapping on OpenStreetMap (although admittedly I hadn't noticed that the under construction roundabout hadn't been linked to the A14 carriageways). You must surely have had some reason for changing this, but in the absence of any evidence to support it so far, I reverted that part of the change in 78120833. If you still disagree, then it should be easier to discuss or re-revert changes on the smaller changeset.

You forgot to list Brampton Hut and Spittals as part of the A141 (fixed in 78120933)

For some reason you merged non-embankment ways and embankment ways between Brampton and the Ouse. This might actually be correct, but doing so as part of a changeset to reflect this weeks opening is confusing and makes it harder to check your sources and verify it wasn't an error. I reverted this change in 78121088 (believing it to be a mistake at the time), but if it's was intended, then you should revert my revert and include a helpful changeset comment and source.

There's also a stray reference to the A14 on the motorway section of the Alconbury spur - I haven't fixed that yet, but will probably do so soon once I've worked out a sensible way to map it.

It looks like your editor has included some London bus route relations in your changeset, despite these relations being unchanged in this changeset. This is probably a bug with JOSM, so I suggest you see if you can find any information (e.g. previous bug reports) on the internet, and raise a report if needed.

I presume the actions you took involved implementing and uploading changeset/78005364, which modified these bus route relations as a consequence of splitting a way to add a turn restriction. You then continued using JOSM without restarting it, triggering a bug in the process.

I am aware that many people have reported bugs in JOSM involving creating multiple changesets in a single session, so I think this is somthing to try and avoid. In particular, if you're subsequent changeset is in a completely different geographic location, then there's virtually no cost to restarting JOSM as you have to download a completely new set of data anyway.

Another thing you can do to help avoid errors in changesets (either your own errors or those introduced by bugs) is to have a look at the list of changed objects in the uploaded changeset. This might not catch everything (and in this case it's possible the bug wouldn't have been visible at that stage), but it should catch some mistakes (I know it's caught some for me). If you do spot a discrepancy, then the 'upload in selection' open might be helpful - or it may be better to restart JOSM and create the second changeset separately.

I think you've reverted the layout to an older set of plans - the layout you've mapped here is the one shown in the Section 6 map dated May 2018, but the Huntingdon Town Centre leaflet dated August 2019 shows the layout that was in OpenStreetMap prior to this changeset. If you'd looked at the way history (which is generally a good idea if you're modifiying existing mapping) you'd have discovered that the layout you've drawn was present in OpenStreetMap until 10 days ago, when Thingummy modified it in https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=77983647
Since the more recent document shows Thingummy's layout, I suggest that you revert to that layout.
(Incidentally, there is evidence elsewhere that the scheme maps on the website don't show the latest plans - for example, the Cambridge Crematorium access road was built in a different location to the one shown on the plans).

There was some discussion of the A14 bypass opening here, in which it was recommended that it isn't marked as open in OpenStreetMap until Monday morning. This recommendation was seemingly ignored. I suggest reverting changesets 77903602, 77902225 and 77902052 to get back to map data that is more accurate for the present, and to fix various other minor issues introduced in those changesets.

highway=motorway_junction was correct - this tag is used even where the road in question isn't actually a motorway.
See highway=motorway_junction

Also, when splitting a way, try to preserve the history on the most substantial/significant portion of the way. In this case you kept the history on the tiny stub you created near Swavesey. (I disagree with splitting that way as well, but that's probably better discussed on your earlier changeset.)

I think this changeset is rather misleading and confusing - the road isn't open yet, you've deleted some of the under-construction bits leaving a strange gap, and made it difficult to work out what's happening near the Swavesey junction. I think it should still be mapped as under construction until Sunday length - there's certainly no reason I can see to partly 'open' it now.

The most obvious issue is the bit by Cambridge North station which is used by the Citi 2 buses as well as the busway buses. Beyond that it comes down to a question of whether the tag "bus_guideway" is appropriate for routes that are restricted to guided buses but physically guided. I disagreed with Borbus about this on changeset/71344354; I'd be interested to hear your opinion too.

Is the ford really at 0.1m below sea level? It seems unlikely, so it looks like you might have misinterpreted the tag.