EN:
Should way/32062630 have been tagged highway=secondary (and not highway=motorway_link). Currently there is no through route for non-motorway traffic.

ES:
¿Debería haberse etiquetado el via 32062630 highway=secondary (y no highway=motorway_link)? Actualmente no existe una ruta directa para el tráfico que no sea de autopista.

I think you forgot to remove the access=no tag. I've removed that tag now.

It seems there have been complaints about this task on the GitHub for the site. SomeoneElse has just commented on the GitHub issue at https://github.com/Zverik/osmstreak/issues/38 and mentioned this changeset as an example.

You should try to avoid creating a changeset with a large bounding box, as it makes it harder for other people to review changes to the map. In particular, you are wasting the time of lots of people who are trying to look at changes affecting their local area, and are seeing this changeset in the list due to it's inappropriately large bounding box.

Your changeset comment suggests that you deliberately made this changeset's bounding box very large. Please don't do this (or anything similar) again.

If the node was intended to be moved, then there's probably nothing else to do right now. If it was in the right place before, and is now in the wrong place, then you should create another edit moving it back to the correct place (and if you do that, then it would be helpful to mention this in the comments here, and mention in the description of the new changeset that it fixes a mistake in this one).

Reverted in changeset/79314757.
Some advice for a future - if you think something has been incorrectly mapped for years, then it's usually worth having a look at the history of the object, to see if it's been changed recently. In this case you would have immediately discovered that it had been retagged as under construction only five months ago, with the changeset comment stating "Stourbridge Common - Ditton Meadows cycleway jetty closed for reconstruction".

Yes, but it is currently closed until summer 2020 for reconstruction, hence why it was tagged as under construction. I think this changeset needs to be reverted.

This changeset also moves a node in Germany by a small amount - presumably this wasn't intentional? How did this happen?

I don't think "disused" has the right meaning here. It's not disused; just temporarily closed for maintenance. The construction tag might be better, but I think the right way to do it (as referenced in the third paragraph on construction=*) is to use conditional restrictions.
E.g., retaining "amenity=fuel" and adding "amenity:conditional=no @ (2020 Jan 2-2020 Feb 12).

I don't think this is the right set of tags to use here. While it might be technically correct (I'm not sure whether that is the case), it is inconsistent with the tagging used on every other road in the terminal (as well as every other port I've looked at). It currently misleads people looking at the rendered, who will likely be led to believe (as I was) that the link from the A20 is closed (perhaps due to some need to manage queues).
I think it would be better to remove the current access tags, and instead add bicycle=no, foot=no and horse=no. (Are any of these explicitly signposted?)

This looks like a mechanical edit (i.e. one systematically with minimal checking of what is actually on the ground). Have you discussed this on the relevant mailing lists, as required by the Automated Edits Code of Conduct (osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct).
Also, note that page for the entrance key explicitly warns against making automated edits in this scenario. (entrance=*).

Some of the issues that arise can be hard to foresee. For instance, this particularly changeset could potential have broken the University of Cambridge map (map.cam.ac.uk), although I think entrances were already broken by a similar mechanical edit three years ago.

This has previously been commented on by robw on changeset/78190542 and Borbus on changeset/78120031, and I made this change partly on the basis that they were suggesting similar things. I think the remark about "only tag construction sites" is more about not mapping roads as closed if they are going to reopen again soon because it might complicate routing decisions. The issue here is different, because it's comparing two different ways of tagging the road while representing it as closed.

You seem to have accidentally moved a node near Bradford as part of this changeset. Was that intended to be a separate changeset, or was the movement just a mistake?

In the imagery this looks like a vehicle routes within a temporary A14 works compound. Since the works at this location are complete, have you got any evidence that there is still a compound there, and that the vehicle routes match this layout? I would expect that it is already being restored to farmland.

This link probably also no longer exists (see my comment on 78800735). I think this changeset should probably also be reverted (it maps part a temporary construction related to construction that has already finished).

This is almost certainly not the current layout - since the A14 opened two weeks ago, I highly doubt that there is still a link onto the carriageway used by construction traffic (and if it does exist, then it won't for much longer). I think this needs reverting, unless you have more recent evidence (i.e. from the past two weeks) to show it still exists.

You seem to have accidentally mapped a school in the middle of the north sea. Presumably this was supposed to be in/near Abidjan. Can you fix this please? Also, I'd be interested to know how this mistake happened in the first place.

Also, can you write more informative changeset comments please - it makes it much easier for people to work out what changesets are supposed to do without having to look at all the details. For instance, a much better comment for this changeset would have been "Tag users prohibited from new A14 bypass, and tag viaduct as bridge=viaduct". A similar remark applies to many of your other changesets - mentioning that you've changed some tags doesn't really say anything about what the changeset actually represents.

A couple of questions:
Why did you only add these tags to a few parts of the new bypass? Surely they ought to be added to the entire route between New Ellington and Swavesey (including the slip roads).

Why did you add a new node to one of the ways? This looks like a misclick to me.

Did you intend to move a trunk_link node onto an admin boundary? I've deleted the node since it seemed to be redundant in its new location, and I don't think the two ways should share nodes here.