Hello Garmin-User,
I think the previous changeset changeset/118650315 that you've undone here is an attempt to fix the problem highlighted at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2021-May/086544.html (see also the links from there, and also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-africa/2021-February/000571.html ).
What was the problem with changeset/118650315 ? A quick look using overpass at that change doesn't reveal any obvious problems to me.
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

Hello andrewpmk,
What actually was the change here?
The reason that I ask is that Osmose is notorious for false positives - with a DWG hat on I recently had to revert quite a lot of "Osmose-only" changes in Europe because it had corrupted names.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello Fred,
Please don't change OSM in a way that loses information. Make sure that the full sense of what was tagged before is not lost.
Best Regards,
Andy

Привет Мосстрит,
Пожалуйста, используйте значимые изменения для ваших комментариев, объясняя, что вы изменили и каков был источник. Использование «разное» каждый раз не помогает другим мапперам понять, что вы изменили.
С уважением,
Энди

Hello mosstreet,
Please use meaningful changes for your comments, explaining what you changed and what the source was. Using "разное" ("different") every time does not help other mappers to understand what you have changed.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello punggoekjin,
"Pohang Marine Corpse Municipality Odojjasekihap Special Metropolitan City" sounds like a pretty unlikely name to me. Please only use real names in OpenStreetMap.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello - sorry for the delay - I've restored it now.

I used the "undelete.pl" script from osm.wiki/Revert_scripts . There's also an "undelete" plugin for JOSM: osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Undelete .
Best Regards,
Andy

Yes - have a look at the examples at osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities#Sample_activities . If you edit the source of that you can see the format needed: osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Organised_Editing/Activities&action=edit&section=3 .
You'll initially create two wiki pages - one about you and one about your activity.
The details you'll need to include there are shown at https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines#Documentation_on_the_wiki .

Hello EZRouting,
Thanks for replying to some of the questions that users have asked.
As clay_c mentioned above, you do need to follow the organised editing guidelines at https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines . Before any further edits, please do everything that you need to do to conform to those.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Also joining up a couple of bus routes and the WAW here, and adding oneway=yes to the roundabout approaches.

Hello andrewpmk,
What actually was the change here?
The reason that I ask is that Osmose is notorious for false positives - with a DWG hat on I recently had to revert quite a lot of "Osmose-only" changes in Europe because it had corrupted names.
Best Regards,
Andy

Actually, check block osm.org/user_blocks/5779

Actually, check block osm.org/user_blocks/5778

For info, the changeset comment here translates to "added new points and changed existing ones to correct ones"

Hallo Nilshagge,
Bitte fügen Sie OpenStreetMap keine gefälschten Daten hinzu, auch nicht als Scherz.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Andy Townsend, im Namen der Data Working Group von OSM

Hello nilshagge,
Please don't add fake data to OpenStreetMap, even as a joke.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Oops! Wrong account. This change was reverted as part of a DWG complaint - see osm.org/user_blocks/5773 and osm.org/user_blocks/5774 and shuld have been done using @SomeoneElse_Revert . Sorry about that!

Hello,
While looking for something else (of course!) I spotted "tag=NEW" on way/1016028864/history
Was that deliberate, and if so, what does it mean?
Best Regards,
Andy

> I fixed it

I don't think that you did. Deleting some crossings in the centre of Wheathampstead suggests osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=51.81562%2C-0.29308%3B51.81537%2C-0.29267 as a preferred route by foot, rather than via node/8963157060 .

The reason why highway=path is less used in England and Wales is partly historical and partly that an access tag is needed here to distiguish foot=yes from =permissive etc.
highway=path can't have both foot=designated (saying it is really a footpath not a cycleway) and foot=permissive or =yes (for the legal access rights).
This isn't a problem where there are sensible access rules like Sweden or Scotland, but it is in England and Wales.