You asked for a review of your changeset. OK: it's vandalism and your changeset comment is gibberish.

As you have not given a source for this, I think it's fairly safe to assume that this is little better than guesswork.

Also, please make meaningful changeset comments.

This was already tagged correctly as motor_vehicle=private + private=residents

There is no *public* access for motor vehicles, but some motor vehicles not covered by other access tags are permitted to use it, specifically: A1 access permit holders and refuse collection vehicles.

It helps to read the traffic order in order to understand road restrictions, as these are usually published in The Gazette under the OpenStreetMap-compatible Open Government Licence.

The initial traffic order was The Newham (Prescribed Route) (No. 1) Experimental Traffic Order 2019, which I believe has now been made permanent.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3347560

In a case like this, it might be worth using an appropriate lifecycle prefix on the highway=* tag (possibly combined with a note=* and/or check_date=* tags) rather than deletion, otherwise someone will probably re-add them.

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Guess what: I don't believe you.

The restriction was created by The Buckinghamshire County Council (Bletchley Pus Station) (No Entry Except Buses) Order 1985. There is no corresponding order revoking that.

"The effect of the Order, which will come into operation on 29th July 1985, is to prohibit any vehicle other than a bus, coach, contract bus express carnage, school bus works bus or security vehicle proceeding in Saxon Street from entering Bletchley Bus Station.

Exemptions in the Order relate to building operations removal of obstructions maintenance of the road sewers pipes, telegraph lines, fire bngade, police and ambulance duties immediate emergency maintenance work on a defective vehicle and in pursuance of statutory powers."

The correct tagging of the above is:
vehicle=no + bus=yes + motor_vehicle=private + emergency=yes
(emergency=yes is often omitted, since it is taken for granted that emergency services can go wherever they need).

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/50210/page/10337

Guess what: I don't believe you.

The restriction was created by The Buckinghamshire County Council (Bletchley Pus Station) (No Entry Except Buses) Order 1985. There is no corresponding order revoking that.

"The effect of the Order, which will come into operation on 29th July 1985, is to prohibit any vehicle other than a bus, coach, contract bus express carnage, school bus
works bus or security vehicle proceeding in Saxon Street from entering Bletchley Bus Station.

Exemptions in the Order relate to building operations removal of obstructions maintenance of the road sewers pipes, telegraph lines, fire bngade, police and ambulance
duties immediate emergency maintenance work on a defective vehicle and in pursuance! of statutory powers."

The correct tagging of the above is:
vehicle=no + bus=yes + motor_vehicle=private + emergency=yes
(emergency=yes is often omitted, since it is taken for granted that emergency services can go wherever they need).

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/50210/page/10337

You DO know who reverted it. You could and should have read the changeset comment. Please DO NOT implement temporary closures in this way - use conditional restrictions. If you can't work out how to do that, tough, don't edit the map at all.

changeset/154343962

The tag for that is motor_vehicle=private

There are separate tagging schemes for parking, but that would involve actually reading a wiki page.

OK, so we have a bus station where *all* motor vehicles have a legal right to drive?

If you ever take and pass your driving theory test, you will hopefully have learned that a no entry sign (TSRGD diagram 616) with a plate below stating "except buses" means that no vehicle may enter except a bus.

In OSM, this is tagged as:
vehicle=no + bus=yes
No other access tags are required.

You do not need to add bicycle=no because bicycles are vehicles. You certainly do not need to add horse=no or motor_vehicle=yes because both of those statements are provably false.

https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=51.995766%7E-0.734393&lvl=22.0&mo=om.1&pi=0.4&style=x&dir=155.1

This was access=no yesterday, now it doesn't exist at all?

No, it's harmful and useless mapping for the renderer. This time, please try reading the wiki page. Perhaps your friends @MKBE_ and @MKBE_2 can help you out?
osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Please leave a meaningful changeset comment.

If this *really* is access=no, how did the cars clearly visible in the aerial imagery get there?

If no access *at all* is allowed on this service road, how did the vehicles clearly visible in the Bing aerial imagery get there?

Then it isn't access=yes. If you don't know how to add a conditional restrictions, you can read the wiki and ask for help on the forum.

osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions

This has a note tag with "This section of road prohibits all motor vehicles other than buses", yet you *still* deliberately set it to motor_vehicle=yes? Reverted.

It wasn't but it is now.

That wasn't OSM's problem, until you added a fictitious access restriction. Reverted.

Maybe it does, but it still exists. Restored.

Adding access=yes to a street which has "no motor vehicles" signs (with exceptions) effectively turned Drapery into a through route for all transport modes. However, it did not have access tags which matched the signed restrictions before you edited it either. Hopefully this is now correct.

The Bing street side imagery showing the restriction signs is at https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=52.238538%7E-0.897411&lvl=19.8&mo=om.1&pi=-11.1&style=x&dir=136.9

Mini-roundabouts (traversable centre, road marking per TSRGD diagram 1003.4) are tagged as nodes rather than as circular ways as routing software needs to be able to differentiate between them. I realise that it is tempting to re-map them so that they look better on the map, but it is incorrect and unhelpful to data consumers. Reverted.