Something that either of you could use to add the ref values back through normal editing is https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1c7t . That shows what ref values were in place on trunk roads on 1st Feb this year. You can of course change the area that the query covers, change the date or change the highway type.
Best Regards,
Andy

With regard to re-adding the "ref" values back, a revert of this changeset wouldn't be easy because (a) it was 8 months ago, and other people have edited things since and (b) some new items were added here too (of which way/911464817 is one example).
If it would help, I can probably try and sort out a list of ways which just had the "ref" removed in this change and revert those ref removals, but I suspect that it'll fix only a small part of the problem - just look at the ref changes on way/4074318/history as an example ("ref=2;4;5" is a clear example of an invalid merge).

@lockdownguy Please calm down. "it's been 2 days since my last message to you, please don't ignore my messages" - do you seriously expect a reply in two days? People have families, jobs and lives outside of OSM, and it's unreasonable to expect someone to reply so quickly.

Hello,
You've reverted here, but presumably the wiki data entry https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1391891 is valid and needs re-adding?
Best Regards,
Andy

أهلا،
آندي من مجموعة عمل بيانات OpenStreetMap هنا. هل يمكنك شرح سبب تغييرك لاسم هذه العقدة مرتين من لغة إلى أخرى http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php؟https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:id=2710783597؟
أيضًا ، يُرجى التوضيح في تعليق مجموعة التغييرات أكثر قليلاً عن التغيير الذي أجريته. في تعليقك على مجموعة التغييرات هنا ، استخدمت فقط الاسم الذي كنت تغيره إليه ، ولا يوجد وصف للسبب أو لمصدرك.
تحياتي الحارة،
آندي

Hello,
Andy from OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group here. Can you explain why you changed the name for this node twice from one language to another http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=2710783597 ?
Also, please do explain in the changeset comment a bit more about your change. In your changeset comment here you only used the name that you were changing it to, no description of why or what your source was.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello vakal, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
As mentioned above, so of the changes here do seem a little odd. You've added way/991707099 as "man_made=pier; floating=yes" for something that seems from he imagery to be very much on land. What actually was it that you were trying to map here?
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks - we've been trying to get in touch with this mapper about their edits for some time now.
Andy (from the Data Working Group)

Hello again Simseva,
Whatever way/855634609 is, it does not look like an office to me. You've added 638 of these across the US and Canada http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1c7k , and we will need to undo those changes.
People have also asked you about some of your other changes, for example at changeset/109427923 , and you have not replied. You can see a full list of comments at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=5697119 .
If you can explain why we should keep some of your other changes we may be able to keep them, but if you don't reply we mayhave to undo them all.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Great stuff, thanks.

Just wondered - are relations 1239778, 1240000 and 1240001 essentially the same thing? They're all called "Dublin Mountains Way Hellfire & Massey Spur" or something like it.
Best Regards,
Andy

Actually, several gaps. Previously https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=165638 said it was in 23 pieces.

Hello,
I wonder if you know the difference between relation/269708#map=12/51.8966/-2.0265 ("Cheltenham Circular Footpath") and relation/67257#map=12/51.8985/-2.0405 ("Cheltenham Circular Path").
The latter one is older, but I guess that it's redudant now and all the ways in 67257 should really be moved to 269708? Or is 67257 really still a "thing" in its own right?
Best Regards,
Andy

Just for info - I think this change might have introduced a "spur" into the IOW AONB relation - https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1c19 - I've snipped it off in changeset/112460850
Best Regards,
Andy

This is part of "Removed accidental spur from Kirklees Way "

Hello,
I've filled in the gap in the Kirklees Way https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1c15 so that it matches what it was the day before:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1c13 . Just checking though - has it actually been diverted around the construction area?
Best Regards,
Andy

Finally it's worth mentioning that there's a very similar discussion going on across the Tasman about cycle access on footpaths in Victoria: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/thread.html#15062 . There (but not in many other AU states) the legal right of access of cyclists on footpaths is apparently "it's complicated".
I've no idea where the equivalent place for the NZ community to discuss would be - https://openstreetmap.community/ suggests https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nz , but that doesn't seem very busy.

On the subject of "I suggested a wider line and new colour recognising a sharing" it's worth mentioning that there are many, many representations of OSM data - there are 6 now on openstreetmap.org itself, and many more elsewhere.
If you want to suggest a change to how one of those displays things you'll need to explicitly make that suggestion to whichever project maintains that map rendering.
There are other uses (foot routers, cycle routers etc.) that don't have a map display associated with them - for those you'll want to ensure that all tags including access are set correctly so that they know what they can route along a particular OSM way.

Looking at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=567640 (which is all the changesets on which you have commented) this does appear to be at least the third time that you've had this conversation with people.
Can you link to "the proposal in my last message for a shared path highway type" though? It's not obvious which one it is.
With regard to extra information like width - you can add that as an explicit "width" tag.

So on the specifics, according to http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=722844462 in changesets osm.org/browse/changeset/76933663 , osm.org/browse/changeset/110392567 and osm.org/browse/changeset/110939910 you did remove access tags.
On its own, a "highway=path" tag does not say anything about who has the legal right to use it or how appropriate it is for that mode of transport. A "foot=designated" tag with "highway=path" means "this path was designed for use for people on foot"; similarly a "bicycle=designated" tag means "this path was designed for use for people on bicycle". Without tags that explain who can use a highway=path , everyone's guessing.