"access=private" does make sense here, so I've added it.
@SomeoneElse/diary/404748 does look at "likely access tags where not declared" and for track (and service is similar) "private" is the likely correct value in England and Wales, unless there's a designation or other information suggesting any different.

I was chasing down a rendering problem wondering why the name did not appear at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#22/53.95317/-1.08447 , and then realised that someone had removed it!
To answer the question, the easiest way to "undo an erroneous change" in a case like this is just to "edit it again and add the name back". There are various changeset revert options, but none are as quick in a case like this as just editing it, as I've just done in changeset/155773016 .
Cheers,
Andy

The user adding these features has been asked to not map temporary ones at osm.org/user_blocks/16614 already.

@TrickyFoxy way/1308852272/history was/is pretty obviously a temporary structure. No source was given in the changeset that added it, so it's really not verifiable.
The natural objects changed seem to be way/1308852277/history and way/39253573 . The change involved adding one and adding an "intermittent" tag to the other. Given the nature of the water here, neither of those are likely fixed either.

Hello,
You've removed an access tag from way/143092566/history - how could you tell from aerial imagery?
Best Regards,
Andy

Great stuff - thanks!

Hello,
Andy from the Data Working Group here. Because of the ambiguity, I suspect that it's best to roll this change back.
Anyone that sees an "amenity=lockers" locally can decide to go and visit it and decide whether it is an amenity=luggage_locker , amenity=parcel_locker or something else. In some areas the operator might be characteristic, in others it may not be.
I suspect that it's not suitable for a Maproulette task because many or most will need a survey. Perhaps have a chat with StreetComplete?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
You've added an "indoor fire alarm box" node/12121514172 that is apparently underwater?
Should it perhaps be tagged as something else?
Best Regards,
Andy

As previously noted:
Please discuss these edits in the forum first. You'll need to persuade people that:
o the data you are using has a suitable licence
o the roads are closed for long enough to make it worth changing.

The massive bounding box is perhaps due to relation edits. The actual edits are at https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=155362732

Thanks both!

Spam. Same comments apply here as changeset/154646346

Hola Cubano153,

Como mencioné antes, he revertido y redactado datos modificados por conjuntos de cambios como este que usaba Google como fuente.
No podemos usar Google porque su licencia no es compatible con OSM.
Debido a la naturaleza interconectada de sus conjuntos de cambios, hay algunos ajustes que deberá realizar en esta área. Hágalo, pero no debe usar datos de Google para hacerlo.
Atentamente,
Andy Townsend, en nombre del Grupo de trabajo de datos de OSM.

Hello Cubano153,

As I mentioned earlier I've reverted and redacted data changed by changesets such as this one which used Google as a source.
We cannot use Google because its licence is not compatible with OSM.
Because of the interlinked nature of your changesets, there is some tidying up that you will need to do in this area. Please do that - but you must not use Google data to do that.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello Cubano153,
As has already been mentioned, we can't use Google as a source because their licence is not compatible with ours.
These changes have already been reverted, but we'll also need to redact them.
Best Regards, Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I've already added this comment to several other "conflict changesets" here.

Accusing each other of vandalism and reverting changes without discussion won't get us anywhere. Please discuss these changes on the forum together. Tags already exist there for https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/armenia and https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/azerbaijan .

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,
I've already added this comment to several other "conflict changesets" here.

Accusing each other of vandalism and reverting changes without discussion won't get us anywhere. Please discuss these changes on the forum together. Tags already exist there for https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/armenia and https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/azerbaijan .

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,
I'm adding this comment to each of changeset/155077463 , changeset/155077906 , changeset/155077446 , changeset/155077894 .

Accusing each other of vandalism and reverting changes without discussion won't get us anywhere. Please discuss these changes on the forum together. Tags already exist there for https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/armenia and https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/azerbaijan .

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,
I'm adding this comment to each of changeset/155077463 , changeset/155077906 , changeset/155077446 , changeset/155077894 .

Accusing each other of vandalism and reverting changes without discussion won't get us anywhere. Please discuss these changes on the forum together. Tags already exist there for https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/armenia and https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/azerbaijan .

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,
I'm adding this comment to each of changeset/155077463 , changeset/155077906 , changeset/155077446 , changeset/155077894 .

Accusing each other of vandalism and reverting changes without discussion won't get us anywhere. Please discuss these changes on the forum together. Tags already exist there for https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/armenia and https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/azerbaijan .

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group