Can you try to adjust these yourself?
Moving the bus stops is easy - just make sure you don't accidentally glue them to the road or a landuse boundary again. Note that there are bus stops mapped on both sides of the road, reflecting that buses stop there when travelling in both directions. I think you've only been noticing one at a time so far.
The easiest way to adjust the entrance in this case is probably to delete it and create a new one in a more accurate location (although it is technically possible to reuse the existing way while changing all of its (2) nodes). You could also add a node to the middle of this tagged "barrier=gate" or something similar (c.f. barrier=gate ).

If you live in the area, then you might also know what names the roads on the three sides of the triangle should, based upon any nearby signs as well as which route is the through route at each junction.

I've had another look at this, and judging by the Esri Imagery (and also Bing imagery, though it's clear there), I think the crossing is further east than where it was mapped. I'm also not sure why (or how) you edited the crossing anyway - you seem to have deleted and recreated one node, and copied the tags to a different node.

I think I've fixed/improved this in changeset/94610418.

I'll start by noting that Google maps is not a permitted source for OpenStreetMap mapping, so I can't use their imagery to help with edits.

However, I had another look at the Bing imagery and concluded that I could just make out the route of a full perimeter road on that imagery, so I could use that to add it to the map. I realised as a result that the triangular junction on High Street was also misaligned, so I've improved that. What isn't clear from the mapping is the exact location of the entrance from High Street, so I might have put that in the wrong place.

I also tagged it as access=private, since it looks like that's probably the case.

These changes are in changeset/94595269 - do they look correct to you?

I don't see why having a bus stop named after a nearby road should cause confusion (especially if Manor Road has an access from High Street). "Bus Stop" is not part of the bus stops name, so I've removed it again. I also note that you only changed the name on one side of the road anyway.

In this changeset you also joined the bus stops onto the landuse boundaries. These shouldn't be joined, so I've detached them again (while leaving them in the same location).

Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Looking at Bing imagery, there appears to be an internal access road running around the perimeter of the site, possibly with an additional access close to the bus stop on High Street.
Do you know if the Manor Road name applies to this entire road (rather than just the access to the central car park)?
Do you know the layout well enough to be able to add it to the map (the connectivity isn't quite clear on Bing due to overhanging trees)?

Thanks!

One way of tagging it is to tag the bit under the building with tunnel=yes and layer=-1
An alternative might be to split part of the building and add bridge and layer tags to it, but I think the first solution is better.

I think you've incorrectly set most of Prince's Street as oneway.
Also, I think it is better to map this junction with all five ways meeting at a point, rather than having the 'contraflow' way meeting Prince's Street at a different node. I think this makes it easier to understand the junction layout, and is consistent with the layout on the ground (where I don't think the roads meet at two distinct point).

BCNorwich: You actually only removed one of the incorrect names. I've removed the other one now myself.

You're changeset says that the driveway is named "Access road" - that doesn't look like a name, but rather a desciption (which doesn't need to be tagged because it's obvious from context). The access=private tag might be appropriate.

Do you know whether Princes Street or Princess Street is correct? I'd be surprised if it's both, but I don't know which it is.

Surely Mill Common isn't oneway - it's a no through road.
I've removed the oneway tag in 93356498 - let me know if I've got it wrong somehow.

I think you put the traffic_signals tagging on the wrong node.

Hmm, I thought I'd already made a change to reflect the different locations of the temporary and new slip roads, but I can't find that so I'll have to assume I'm misremembering.

One issue: you've disconnected the entrance to the Travelodge from the slip road

What are you trying to achieve here and in changesets 92060270 and 92059383? "Increase complexity" is not a good target in itself. It looks like you've split lots of ways into several short sections, and added a lot of spurious (and unecessary) turn restrictions. There are also a lot of missing oneway tags, and some missing links and excess links.

In general, I think hatched road markings in the centre aren't enough to justify mapping a road as a dual carriageway. A physical island might be enough in some cases (though not if it's just a single tiny traffic island). Also, I think it's usually better not to try mapping separate ways for all possible movements (though I have made that mistake myself in the past).

You also broke the continuity of several bus route relations. I haven't checked whether they have been fully repaired yet.

I think it might be best to revert these changesets, and then start again with any improvements that are worth readding.

This was still tagged badly - the farmland tags hadn't been restored, the proposed police hub is not a commercial use, and it will only occupy a part of the existing farmland area.
I think I've improved this in changeset/93355723.

This change is incorrect. A road can be marked as no-entry at one end without any part of it being oneway. I think it's only oneway if it's marked with a white arrow on a blue rectangular sign at the entrance. In this case there is also a sign on Fitzwilliam Street marking it as explicitly twoway.

Even if the road were oneway to general traffic, the no entry sign has a clear exemption for cyclists, so you would have needed to also tag it oneway:bicycle=no

The no entry restriction is either mapped with short section of oneway tagging at on end (as was already done here), or more accurately by using no_entry turn restrictions. As a general note, the mapping community in Cambridge has done a very good job of mapping twoway roads with no entry restrictions as such, so I think warnings in tools like improveosm are likely to be false positives.

I've reverted this changeset in changeset/93355143. Have you made any other changes like this one?

I notice that the adjacent footpath has been inappropriately named "Permanent diversion", and also seems to be lacking connectivity at the south end. It also comes very close to another footpath near Thornhill Place, but isn't currently connected to that.
Are you able to check the connectivity of this path and fix any issues with it?
Thanks!

This looks like it's mostly an improvement. However, you seem to have left platforms 2+3 rather squint relative to the adjacent tracks - perhaps you could try to improve the alignment a bit.

Hi Mark, welcome to OpenStreetMap

In this changeset you seem to have made changes in several different locations. Unfortunately this makes it very hard for people to work out what you've actually changed. From what I can tell, most of this changeset is some new mapping in Zambia, but it also includes a change near Birmingham. Based upon the bounding box, it looks like there is probably also a change somewhere in Asia, but I can't easily see where this is.

Could you clarify what locations this changeset affects? Also, in future it would be helpful if you could ensure that unrelated changes in different places are uploaded as separate changesets.