Good contribution, Many Thanks.

Hi,
Adding the tag bus=yes to a bus-stop serves no purpose as bus yes is implied by the bus-stop.
The garage spans several back gardens, is not served by a road so I presume it's fiction.
Adding the node to the building outline serves no purpose.
I've reverted the changeset.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Please be aware that OSM is a live worldwide database from which thousands of maps are compiled by businesses and individual folk. Thus your test has uploaded fiction to the database which will give incorrect presentation of ground truth.
I have reverted your changes, hopefully no harm has been done.
There are other sites where testing like this can be done, several sandbox sites.
If you inadvertently upload incorrect data please immediately delete it.

Regards Bernard.

OK no response so I've tagged as footpath, removed the fictional name and joined all cross over points.

Hi Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Some points for your information.
If the unnamed section of road is open for public use the construction=residential tag can be removed.
Usually in the absence of oneway=yes it is implied that there is not a oneway restriction, therefore the oneway=no tag is an unnecessary bloat to the database.

Regards Bernard

I think "Police firing range" is not the name but a description. Also it's not a military area.
Possible the best tags are landuse=firing_range, police=training_area These accurately describe the feature.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Regarding Way: Footpath under low bridge (395843776), is that really the formal name or part of the path description?
The bridge "maxweight=20 tonnes except coaches" tag is incorrect, should be maxweight=20 There's a special maxweght tag for conditions :-osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions

Regards Bernard

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I joined Way: 589608375 to the road at north end.
Way: 503848543, there is no footpath here, there are two footpaths, one each side for pedestrian use only.
You dragged Biopark Drive and Broadwater Road out of alignment joining the to a side road, I've corrected this.
You inadvertently unjoined Way: 119739432 from Peartree Lane, I've re-joined it.
You joined the wood Way: 40633766 to the B195, I've amended it.
Re bridleway Way: 37806016 cycling on a public bridleway is not designated, it is usually allowed though so tag should be bicycle=yes if that is the case. There could be situations where cycling is not allowed on a public bridleway.

Regards Bernard,

Duplicate highway removed

As there is only foot access it must be a footpath.

Hi Phil,
The offending section is where Way: Rainford Linear Park (793197836) is atop of part of footpath Way: 26826466 just before the footpath joins The Spinney.
Then surely The Spinney is the Linear Park route down to Cross Pit Lane.
Way: Rainford Linear Park (793197836) is also placed atop of part of Cross Pit Lane.
Immediately south of Cross Pit Lane the Linear Park route is placed atop of Way: 26803641, an existing footpath.

The existing ways should be sectioned up appropriately and the relevant sections tagged as the Rainford Linear Park.

From what I can gather from the web there is a published circular route around Rainford. It would be good to make a hiking route relation of the whole circuit. Or even a route relation of the Rainford Linear Park.

If you need any help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hi Chris,
No problem, I though it best to revert your changes rather than ask you to remedy them. We can all make mistakes with new things.

The easiest way to edit OSM is with either an online editor (iDeditor) or offline with JOSM. So do you have access to a PC? Failing that why not make a single change, add one path and I'll have a look. Also if you have a GPS trace can you upload that to OSM? I'll then be able to see it. You can message me direct by clicking on my name @BCNorwich

Regards Bernard.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Sorry to have to say there are many problems with the changes you've made.
You managed to delete several footpaths and drag a few out of alignment. You also dragged the camp site out of alignment.

I think you were trying to add paths or tracks in the woods but you failed to tag any of them. Further some are unjoined crossings, some fail to join, some cross over waterway without determining how (ford or bridge).

As it's likely you'll not see this comment I've reverted the changeset. For info that's with my Changeset: 84132468

Please try again to add the paths, if you need help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've reverted your changeset to reinstate the highways you deleted. I then amended the tagging to highways.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Not really enough address to navigate to or find the apartments. Are those hotels? Also, you've placed one in the middle of a road which can't be right.
Regards Bernard.

Is there a dam there? The water flows south so a dam would have water to the north which it doesn't. The waterway exits a tunnel here.

Removed fictional parks

Regarding way Stink Pipe (7443811262, v1). This is actually a vent pipe for the sewerage system and is quite likely still in use. Are your tags historic=monument and name=Stink Pipe correct and verifiable and from whence does the verifiability come?. The name is likely fiction and unless the object is listed it's not likely to be regarded as historical.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, regarding Way: 795840159 (New River Path). The path you have drawn is not historic nor heritage, from the website you quote the way is a new footpath. The New River itself is a heritage/historic feature. Your line looks like it is a duplicate or triplicate of other ways on this line. Could you please rectify this?
Thanks Bernard.

Hi, your hydrant tagging indicates an above ground physical hydrant, I don't think this is the case here in the UK. What is probably there is a sluice valve that can be used by the fire brigade to erect a hydrant. If this is the case you could add the tag fire_hydrant:type=underground.
Regards Bernard.