Hi, I don't think there's a footway or proper sidewalk here, and no embankments. Also the ways to Banner House look wrong.
Regards

Hi the whole field area wouldn't be a tree row which is a linear feature. Can you please correct this?
Regards

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Would you have another go at mapping these highways please? It looks like service roads through a fuel station, with no embankments.

Hi, you inadvertently left the service roads on the car park no joined up. I've rectified this problem.
Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
An area is always better than a single point, POI. The skating area was already mapped so I've placed your new data on that area along with the original area data. Thus all data concerning the feature is consolidated.
Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

OpenStreetMap represents physical features on the ground (e.g., roads or buildings) using tags attached to its basic data structures (its nodes, ways, and relations). Each tag describes a geographic attribute of the feature being shown by that specific node, way or relation. Your two nodes/features are not tagged with any descriptive values.

Further 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).

I hope you can see my concern that your two nodes do not represent any physical feature that can be verified, thus ought to be removed.

With the JOSM editor (and many other applications), data such as you've added to the OSM database can be saved/stored offline.
If I can help further please just ask.

Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I placed the name on the road instead of the end node, then joined your road to High Street, (amended post code to suit street tagging of post codes).

The mews should now render in OSM and be route-able.

Regards Bernard
If you need any help please just ask.

Hi,
I separated Waites Court from being drawn atop of the larger building. Waites Court was and is correctly tagged.

The larger building was tagged by yourself with building:levels=4
building:min_level=3
building:part=yes
It was/is not tagged as Wallis Court.

Wallis Court is an address node attached to the larger building, again the tags present were placed by yourself. I don't know if Wallis Court takes up the whole of that building or what part of it. Therefore it would not be right to tag the whole building as Wallis Court.

I would agree the large shape is a building and in wanting to preserve the tags already there I overlooked the fact that building=yes or building=apartments was missing. Do you think it would be appropiate to change building:part=yes to building=yes, as I think the whole building is now drawn?

Regards Bernard

Layout amended.

Hello several of your new highways are not actually connected to the highways they look like they should join. I corrected quite a few of them. Just wanted to alert you to this.
Regards Bernard.

Hi and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
That I'm pretty certain is a pair of houses so building=house (singular) would be inadvertently incorrect. I've changed it to building=residential which is correct for OSM.
It could be divided into two houses.
Regards Bernard

Hi, I reverted your changeset as it disconnected a drive from joining the B4442 and connected a post box to a driveway.

No response so fiction is removed.

Hi this building is made up of two shapes, an inner and an outer, thus it is described as a relation, (Relation: Kasturba Bhawan (6107151) relation/6107151#map=19/29.86720/77.90082&layers=N
The tags describing a multipolygon shape should be placed in the multipolygon relation rather than on part of the multipolygon. I've moved the name tag for you.
Please take a little time to work out the best practice to add features to OSM, look at how other things have been added/tagged. You can find much guidance online, or just ask.
If I can help please just ask.
Regards Bernard

I agree that is a T junction but it "T-point" really it's name? OSM Good Practice says, (under Good Practice) 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). This principle excludes hypothetical or opinionated data like ratings.

Regards Bernard

Hi, a mini roundabout is a type of road junction. This one is on it's own, not connected to any highway, inside the circle.
IMHO this circle should be mapped as a roundabout and the mini roundabout remove, as described here :- junction=roundabout

The two circles as ECE circles are similar in appearance so ought be tagged similarly.

By the way are those names "ECE circle" and "ECE circle 2" really official names that can be verified by folk visiting the area?

Regards Bernard.

Sorry I should have mentioned, please see here :- junction=roundabout

Hi, shouldn't the feeder roads to the circle (from east west and north) be oneway as well as the circle? That's what they usually are.
Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
You've tagged the whole L shaped building as Waites Court! Are you sure this is correct?
The northern entrance to the same building is tagged as Wallis Court.

I think actually the building might be in two parts. The south section (facing Woodchurch Road) being Waites Court and separated from the main building. Then the main building (facing Priory Road) should have a wing at the north end running westwards, that's how it's shown on Esri and Digital Globe imagery.

What do you think, if you need any help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Unfortunately you have duplicated and on one section triplicated the exiting mapped highways. Nor have you made a Route Relation.
I think the best way forward is to revert this changeset and for you to rethink what yo wish to achieve.
Regards Bernard