Hi, HUSH clothes is not part of the shop name so I've removed the fiction.
Regards Bernard

Hi, you've named two sections as Sager Way, should they be Sayer Way as well?
Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Verifiability, OSM data should, as far as is reasonably possible, be verifiable. The principle applies to tags and other aspects of data representation, and essentially means another mapper should be able to come to the same place and collect the same data ("verify" the data you have entered).
How would I be able to verify the bird feeder name of "Bird Feeders", and the postal address of the bird feeder should I wish to send mail? If it's not verifiable it ought to be removed.
Your building is nicely done, I did just orthogonalise the shape. Squaring shapes up can be done in the iD editor.
Regards Bernard

Hi, I notice you are mapping a lot of fences to go through the middle of buildings, this is completely wrong. In over 50 years in the building trade I've never seen a fence going through a house.
Further a great many of these fences are duplicated (fence on-top of fence). I've never seen that done either, in very rare circumstances you might get two fences back to back.
A way to correct or better draw this would be to draw the gardens separately (front and back also separately if indeed they are separated), then draw the individual fence sections on top of the garden outlines. Thus a better depiction of whats actually there.
Regards Bernard.

Hi I amended and added to the details.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
The Green (Way: The Green (25786204)), is already mapped in it's entirety and you have edited that way, thus I've removed your duplication.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, it's the London Eye and it's already mapped.
It's London Zoo and it's already mapped.
Kensington Palace is already mapped.
Hamleys is already mapped, if Paddington is really the name in Latvian please place it of the mapped building outline.
Regards Bernard

Hello, these three POI are already in the OSM data base. Thus I have removed the duplication, placing any extra info from your POI onto the feature where appropriate.
Regards Bernard

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
The building names are on the building outlines so are not needed as separate POI, I've therefore removed the POI as being duplicated info.
I also tagged the college grounds as amenity=college, this being OSM practice.
Regards Bernard

Hi, a junction node for this POI is not correct.
I suspect there is no geographical feature that is verifiable on the ground for the POI. Unless you can show the POI as verifiable then it ought be removed.

Hi, I've made a section of Lakis Close into a passageway.

You mapped/tagged No9 as landuse residential, if it's a house it's not a land area. Thus I tagged it as a building=house and amended the original building outline so the house No9 was separated. Is this now correct? Or do you mean that the whole building is apartments 1-9?
Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
You added Way: 575560951 as an area but do not add tags to describe what the area actually is. In this manner it has no meaning, could you please add descriptive tags?
Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I've amended the opening hours tag to suit OSM practice.
Regards Bernard.

Hi Thanks, you must have accidentally moved it from roughly the middle of St Gabriel's Road to the back garden.
Regards.

Hello Dragonmaster306,
The ways in this changeset are designated as permissive for foot use. Please see here :- http://www.highashfarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Walks-Map.jpg
Also please be sure before amending what is already mapped, you could easily ask the original mapper for verification of the data.
All the Best Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Firstly tourism=attraction is not much use to folk if they are not told what the feature is, waterfall, statue etc.
Then the tag name:he=פארק is also incorrect, the formal name of the area, even in Hebrew is not "park".
The tag name=hampsted heath is correctly stated except that it should be capitalised. But that name is already tagged on the whole park/heath area. Please see here :- way/4498107
So I hope you can realise those four features are not needed thus ought be removed. I await your response and if you need any help please just ask.
Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Does Lakis Close go through the building? I suspect there should be a passageway here.
I've made your new area into building=house rather than a landuse=residential and adjusted the original to accommodate the new house. Otherwise there would have been a building within a building. I think this is what you were intending.
Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I've removed your residential area additions as this whole area is already mapped as residential within Relation: 1966806
relation/1966806#map=15/52.0824/1.1319&layers=N
Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
It looks like your new park is over an area that contained several houses, roads and a chapel complete with graveyard. Were these features really removed for a park? If your additions are fiction then they are not needed in OSM and should be removed. Your response is awaited.

There are ways that you can map personal or fiction features without disrupting OSM's live worldwide database. If you need any help with OSM please just ask.
Regards Bernard

Hi,
I added addr:country=GB to facilitate worldwide search, (OSM is a worldwide database).
Removed payment:coins=yes, not needed as covered by payment:cash=yes.
Removed payment:credit_cards=yes as this is not specifically recognized as individual card types are recognized, (amex, visa etc.).
Removed payment:debit_cards=yes as this is not specifically recognized as individual card types are recognized.
You could use payment:credit_cards=yes and/or payment:debit_cards=yes when/if the card types aren't specified.
Regards Bernard