Hi Eman,
Looks all good now exactly what I thought from imagery. I'm not local though so I was reluctant to map itas such.

Regards & Thanks Bernard.

Hi, Regarding Way: Recreational Community Hall (916006919), I've reinstated the correct building level tag and corrected the name to English, (the building is in the UK so English is the area language).

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You made a few mistakes here which I've rectified, hedges unjoined, duplication of road sections, and making Button Lane a bridge and also adding a level crossing where there is none.

Please make sure what you upload to OSM is ground truth, other folk may well rely on correct mapping.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please don't test on a live worldwide database. I've reversed your mapping as it doesn't make sense.

Regards Bernard

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

A building on the ground surface would, (by OSM), be designated as layer=0. Layer=0 is the case for most buildings, thus for OSM, in the absence of a layer tag, layer=0 is implied. Thus no layer tag is needed here.

It's OSM practice when something like the bank ceases to trade the relevant tags are appended with disused. Then other folk know exactly what has happened and other mappers won't add the details back. I've added the tags disused:amenity=bank
disused:name=Barclays Bank.

Regards Bernard.

The wood area was correct, you mapped around a tree shadow.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I see you've removed a beach area. Has the beach disappeared now, have you checked it at all states of the tide? Because at high tide it would not be visible but still be there. Please note that the Bing imagery may have been taken when the tide covered the beach.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, you deleted the steps down to the subway. I've reinstated them. Please be careful not to inadvertently remove features.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Yes you have certainly removed the highway that zig zagged and at north duplicated anotherhighway. I take it then that there was not two highways or a dual carriageway.

The concern now is the bridge you've also removed. The imagery seems to show a bridge over Wadi Jawf. The highway does cross the wadi, do you know if there is a ford or a bridge? OSM should show how the road crosses the wadi,

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Way: 1253207941 removed as it is duplication.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Way: طريق الجوف (1253207914)
and Way: طريق الجوف (154265995)
are joined together at the north end. Are there 1 or 2 highways, is it a dual carriageway?
Could you please correct this as it will disrupt routing.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Just to let you know that roads have been moved off of alignment near the new bridge Way: 1253207911

Regards Bernard.

Hi, The areas of Way: 661461356, Way: 661461347, Way: 661461352, and Way: 661461358 look strange shapes. In two of them, the outlines self-intersect. I can't remedy the self-intersection not knowing what the shape should be.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You somehow duplicated a few building outlines. I've made amendments.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've removed duplicated buildings and amended the existing building outlines to suit your new info. I amended some of the tagging of addresses and squared up some building outlines.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Placing buildings within buildings is not the right thing to do. Rather the existing building should be split into the relevant new areas and each new area tagged. I've amended the existing school building to suit your new info.

Regards Bernard.

Also highways within school grounds would not be classed as residential, they would be service roads. In fact a lot of them actually look like footpaths.

I've made some amendments.

Regards Bernard

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Just to let you know that placing a highway (Footpath Way: 1252055064) on top of an existing highway (Service Road Way: 673927258) disrupts routing. Thus I've removed the footpath from atop the service road.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've added some details, please check to see if it's OK.

Regards Bernard.

The designation of public footpath is correct but horses and cycles may have private or permissive use, their use is not automatically banned. The land owner can permit what they wish as long as the designated use is in no way obstructed or deterred.