Hi, I've drawn the buildings and transferred the info from POI to building. Allow a little while to let the routers update and try routing.
The buildings are not yet rendering but OSM can already find Sayers Court, Colchester and Lexden Place, Colchester.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Is the defibrillator accessible by the public from the road? If so it ought not be tagged as indoors as this indicates it is not accessible by the general passing public.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Review request, very good. Try the Maxar imagery from the (shortcut B) in iD editor for better clarity.

Regards Bernard.

I've now reconstructed this route from the original existing sections of highways. As you can see the route is made all from existing highways without the need for adding untagged ways.

Regards Bernard.

By placing a path on top of a tertiary road you're duplicating ways, thus disrupting routeing. Please follow the correct procedure to map route relations.

This route has been drawn on top of existing highways.
For route relations using sections of existing highways the existing highway should be sectioned up to allow the existing highway sections to be added to the route relation. If necessary the existing highway sections can have tags amended. Thus you can know the type of highway and conditions/restrictions of each section of the route. Also the length of a section on a particular highway, (how long the bad patches are).

Forgot the link :-relation/11043684#map=15/53.5055/-2.7753

Hi Phil,
I've amended the problems with duplicated crossing ways and created a route relation for the Rainford Linear Park path. It doesn't appear yet needs a little time.
Regards Bernard.

Hello AMWS,
My apologies, (some folk do just change things for their own purposes and one can't tell genuine changes). I did wait awhile before making amendments.
Can I just add when you draw a new path please join it to all other highways it crosses over, thus completing the network.

Regards Bernard.

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.