Hello,
What was the source of your change here? Looking at the history node/12749774034/history , it was originally mapped as "shop=fish", changed by someone remotely without survey, and changed back following a complaint to the DWG.
If you've been there and verified that "shop=seafood" really is correct here then obviously that's fine, but if not mechanical changes really do need to go through osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct . There are exceptions - something like "shop=pirmary" can be changed to "shop=primary" because it's obvious what was meant.
Changing "fish" to "seafood" may also be somewhat problematic because a "fish shop" in many parts of the UK is colloquially a fish and chip shop.
An image search https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=fish+shop+glasgow&ia=images&iax=images for "fish shop glasgow" returns mostly fish and chips, a fishmonger and also an aquatics shop!
Best Regards,
Andy

Looks like this introduced a gap in the Cotswold Way. I've filled in the gap in changeset/183521302 .

I've re-added the missing bit to the Sussex Ouse Valley Way - see changeset/183453260 . Does this look OK?

Hello Pernycek,
Ignoring Google Maps (Which we cannot use) and wikidata (usually likewise, for different reasons), what is your source for your edit here?
Best Regards,
Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)

Ah - I see a comment on changeset/182785531 explaining the signage.

Powiedziałeś „przywróć błędną edycję kierunkową”, ale nie powiedziałeś, skąd to wiesz. Poprzedni redaktor powiedział: „Ulica Lubartowska jest dwukierunkowa na całej swojej długości”.
Bez żadnych konkretnych dowodów skończymy na wojnach edycyjnych w nieskończoność, takich jak https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/230504488.
Proszę, wyjaśnij, dlaczego masz rację, a drugi maper się myli.

You've said "revert incorrect directionality editing" but have not said how you know that. The previous editor said "Lubartowska Street is two-way along its entire length."
Without any actual evidence we'll end up with edit wars ad infinitum like https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/230504488 .
Please explain why you are right and the other mapper is wrong.

@Vojtěch Fošnár what is "sync dev"? If you're importing data into OSM you must follow osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines .

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here (we've been made aware of this discussion).
Outside the DWG I've spent quite a lot of time looking at what OSM tags are used with what other OSM tags. "attraction=animal" on an animal enclosure within a zoo doesn't usually have a "tourism=attraction" tag.
If you look at the tags that occur with "attraction=animal" https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/attraction=animal#combinations you can see that "tourism=attraction" is used in only a third of cases.
Quite a few of those are "standalone" animal attractions like node/6611980233 , not within zoos at all.
I'd actually suggest the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/ as the best way to discuss this sort of thing.
Best Regards,
Andy

It looks like this edit broke a couple of cycle routes - see e.g. relation/11017#map=20/57.3458154/-4.0042718 .
Also, is way/37121135 really access=no currently?

Oops - looks like this broke a bunch of relations such as relation/11064743#map=20/53.3295359/-6.5297889 . I've split the bridge in two where the boundary joined and removed the extra bit from the 15 relations.
Personally I find editing relations in Vespucci very complicated (although the author of Vespucci does not - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/cloning-copying-a-relation-or-route/142949/15 ).
Cheers,
Andy

Also ts2761a (Walsden 509 bus) and ts2762b (Todmorden)

Here you say that https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/8692572 is no longer disputed by Morocco. What evidence do you have for that?

Here you have changed the name of https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/8692572 from a mulitlingual version to just Spanish. Did you discuss that with both the Spanish and Moroccan OSM communities?

Here you have removed a couple of alt_names from Parsley Island https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/8692572 . Can you explain why?

Also, what does the changeset comment "lines" mean?

Hello Muskovian and welcome to OSM.
Can you explain why you deleted relation/9520115/history here?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

You've got "type=multipolygin" in here.
You could argue that "claimed_by" makes sense, but it is only claimed by one person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADt_Jedli%C4%8Dka , not any government.

Hello,
I've moved the Hertfordshire Way and the other signed paths over to the parallel riverside paths in changeset/183021991 - does that make sense to you?
Best Regards,
Andy

(no bats involved!)