Please don't perform mechanical edits on OpenStreetMap data. If you'd looked at the history here, you'd have seen that "source:highway=unclassified" was a tag added deliberately by me, and then restored by me after a previous non-local mapper tried to change it. It wasn't an error; it was designed to indicate what the surveyed state of this road was. Rather than making changes to areas that you are not familiar with I'd suggest instead that you concentrate on surveying your local area - new users adding new things is the only way that the data in OpenStreetMap will be improved. Simply changing the tags on something already mapped won't do that, and it can (as here) make things worse.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Just letting you know that the name of way/361799047/history might be misspelt - it's currently "Ampitheatre" but the usual spelling is "Amphitheatre". One other thing - you've set the "name" of way/361799051 to "Field (Minster Sch)". It's already described as grass (tagged internally as "landuse=grass") so it's clear what it is; if the name isn't really "Field" you don't need to give it that name just so it appears on the map - software that decides how it appears on a map will already know it's grass and will be able to use that information. Also, if you want, you can draw the outline for the school grounds around the whole site and just have the bit in the middle described as a building.
Hope you don't mind me mentioning this...

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! You may be wondering why way/361573056 which you added in Clumber Park doesn't show up on the map. The answer is that it won't, until you say what sort of thing it is. In the editor there's a search box, and if you type something in there, the chances are that you'll find what you're looking for.

@Cradamy - are you sure? http://www.keepcool.fr/salle-de-sport-lyon-part-dieu.html

Hi - just spotted node/1607013141/history . The changeset comment suggests "access=private", but the tag added as actually "access_land=private". Just wondered if that was deliberate?

Hi - thanks for fixing note/127617 . There still seems to be a problem here though - way/136112706#map=19/52.56946/-0.57669 and way/116233678#map=19/52.56946/-0.57675 seem to show that the cycleway and and footpath use the same path here. In order to avoid confusing routers the normal way to do this is to split the ways and make e.g. "Wakerly Woods Red Route" into a "relation" in OSM. There's a bit of a description in the OSM wiki at osm.wiki/Relation (though that makes things sound more complicated than necessary). the Jurassic Way (see relation/334253#map=14/52.5704/-0.5783 ) is already mapped like this. You can see a specialist visualisation of routes like this at http://waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=14&lat=52.57173&lon=-0.58689&hill=0# .

Hi, I spotted this after reading http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=32056 . The changeset you've reverted here doesn't at first glance look much like vandalism to me; what made you think that it was?
If you're local to UW and Seattle I'd suggest contacting the author of this changeset (and 32881863) and explaining what happened, and offering to help them with whatever they're trying to do. New local mappers are the only people who can provide the level of local detail to OpenStreetMap; we need to try and retain all the ones that we can.

I wonder whether area:highway would be a better option for the highway areas here? Broad Street's certainly wide enough to need the area representing, but I wonder how much area=yes confuses consumers? The downside of course is that it wouldn't render on the standard map - it'd look something like way/98018013 . For ref, area=*#Highway_areas is how the wiki says to do it now (which is what's there currently) and osm.wiki/Proposed_features/area:highway is the suggestion.

Something's definitely gone wrong at way/361916197#map=19/53.94287/-1.36999 - it overlaps with the bridleway at way/246863925#map=19/53.94285/-1.36986 . There's no changeset comment here so I've no idea whether you've surveyed or not, but are you sure about the overlap? It seems unlikely.

Are the strange tags in here related to the import that you mention in your post to the imports list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2015-July/003980.html (which unfortunately was sent in a format that the list didn't archive)?

The documented shelter tag for bus stops is shelter=yes. See highway=bus%20stop

For info I've added a note at note/402115 suggesting a local survey - what's there now is clearly wrong.

Hi - would it be possible for you to have a look at way/133062144/history which you originally mapped a while back? That had different width and surface_width tags previously; it now doesn't, so might be worth checking that all is OK. I'm not sure exactly what having the two different means, so it might be worth mentioning that in the changeset comment too.

I'm guessing that the name of relation/4629137 isn't really "RAF Wyton - runways closed 2015"? Presumably either the name or a tag such as old_name should just be "RAF Wyton"?

OK - thanks, done.

Not sure where the "typo in highway" in way/61096969 was - it's not a highway at all now, just a note to say there isn't one (just in case any tries to map it from an old GPS trace)

Hi - you've changed way/244270052/history from former_highway to disused:highway, but looking at the mapping there's a large building built where the road was. Surely disused:highway would be wrong in this case?

Note added - note/401982

The bit next to the Co-Op didn't look like a separate branch and did have a "this branch has closed" sign on it. It's possible that the branch next door was still Nationwide and still open (though it didn't say on the sign!). From the picture, it might not have been obvious from East Street (where I was) - probably needs a note adding.

Did you happen to notice whether there are two Nationwide ATMs at node/3563651010 or just 1, and whether it's actually still open? The branch behind has shut.