Hello and welcome to OSM.

I have observed a few changes you made in the last days, and I also saw that other users started reverting some of your edits.  I chose to comment on this changeset because I feel it contains an error, but the text below is a general comment.  Here are some suggestions to improve.

1) Since you are a new account, I believe it sounds a little overrated to claim that you are "fixing" things (i.e. presumably all the mistakes made by other people who edited the map before you).  It generally takes months or years of practice to understand all the interconnections between objects; too many people easily assume that anything they don’t grasp is a mistake.  Instead, you might want to use changeset titles to explain *why* you are changing those tags (e.g. your own findings after visiting those roads, or you are writing a routing engine and found some broken connections…)

2) A useful reading is the table here, which gives the default values which (good) routing engines are expected to follow.  This page has been actively maintained for years and Belgian mappers often refer to it in case of doubt.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Belgium

3) It is a good idea to avoid tagging default values.  The idea is this: by default a normal road (residential, tertiary…) is open to everyone.  If you want to prevent motor vehicles from using it, you can add "motor_vehicle=no" to add a restriction.  But to lift this restriction (e.g. after roadworks or in case someone would have added the tag by mistake) it is better to remove the tag entirely.  Please do not change "no" into "yes" because if you do that we’ll end up with an access tag that repeats the default values.  Although routing engines will continue working fine, doing unnecessarily clutters the tag list and will confuse other mappers.
Same with "oneway=no" on two-way roads, in most cases it is not needed.

4) Setting an access tag set to "yes" is only wanted in two situations: when the default value from the table puts it to no (e.g. sidewalks are for pedestrians only but if there are D9/D10 signs we can add "bicycle=yes") or to counter a "no" on a higher class in the cascaded model (typically, something like "access=no" + "foot=yes").

5) Same with turn restrictions.  If a street is one-way or is de facto barred to traffic (e.g. pedestrian road) there is no need to add a turn restriction in OSM to say it.  Even if the municipality put a road sign to warn drivers.  Routing has already excluded it from the list of streets; such a restriction only creates confusion and makes the database even more complicated to update later.

Happy mapping.  Feel free to write back under this comment if needed.