Can you now. So why did you delete the ways entirely then? Why did you not just remove the tags as your dishonest edit summary suggested you had?

As for my tagging after I undeleted them the first time? Quite correct actually. When I first created those bays the current tagging scheme didn't exist. So they were tagged reasonably appropriately for the time. Now? The new parking schema exists.

So let's have a look at this schema's notes on the wiki.

"Parking only in parking bays adjacent to the carriageway, which could not easily be converted into a travel lane."

That's versus:

"Parking on the street (which could be easily converted to a travel lane)."

Are the parking bays in question adjacent to the carriageway? Yes. See a parking aisle is a carriageway in exactly the same way any other road or street is. Now it is arguable that some of the bays in this particular car park are just paint on the tarmac. However a good portion of them certainly aren't. A good portion of them are structurally built as street side bays.

As for tagging the whole car park? Where exactly are its limits? That's often an awkward question when dealing with them. Individual bays are very clearly delimited. Hence preferring tagging them.

Oh and as for, "Disabled parking is required and I can make out at least one so I know you didn't survey any of the specialized capacities"? Wrong. Now for the bays over the crest of the hill it is a bit tricky to see them from the gate. However for the ones nearer to the entrance I very much did survey them. See I did it when I walked past the club. So you deleted things that I absolutely did survey. Also there is one bay which appears to have disabled spaces. The others clearly don't have such bays even from aerial imagery.

So the most you should have done is removed the disabled capacity tag from the bay next to the buildings. One tag on one way only. Yet you deleted them all. All of the tags. All of the ways.