Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
That street does not seem to be Hill View, it's Ermine Street. Also, the house doesn't look like a tourist apartment. Are you sure you've got this right?
Regards Bernard.

No response so I'll change the name tag to ref tag

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I've removed the following three ways because you had duplicated existing ways. If a way needs amending please amend the existing way (don't delete or duplicate it) thus the history of the original way is maintained in the OSM data.
Way: LA7/43/30 (791477653)
Way: LA7/43/40 (791477654)
Way: LA7/4/10 (791477655)
Way: LA7/34/10 (791477649)

I've also changed the names you added to ref=???. These are reference numbers used by the highway authority, not names.Otherwise good work.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Are you sure there's only one bridge support and close to one end of the bridge?One support would logically be in the center.

Also I've removed your new Way: 791390057 as it duplicated an existing highway.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Way: Woodbridge School Field (200912372) is a recreation ground, it is not an amenity=school. The amenity tag is on the school grounds overall outline, within which the recreation area is. I've capitalised the name and amended the tagging to suit OSM tagging.

Regards Bernard.

No response so I've reverted the changes.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I've amended your natural=wood tag to natural=tree as these look like individual trees rather than a wood area. They now render properly.
I also tweaked some of the golf feature tagging to suit :- leisure=golf_course

Regards Bernard.

Hi Bruce, I accept your reasoning. But as the way was mapped and tagged anyone using OSM data derived map or routing would not be guided up there to the Pavilion as there was a footpath (pedestrian access only) section to restrict going onto the park. So anyone doing as you say would be acting against what OSM data shows. OSM data must be ground truth data, not data presented to give a personal desire.
Actually I think there is a barrier on this way before it joins the path on the edge of the park. But from the Bing image I can't quite make out what it is.

Hi, Please don't delete and redraw an area when it only needs for the original area to be amended. This action loses all te OSM history associated with the originally mapped feature.
Regards Bernard.

Changed tagging to building which it is.

Hi, This was correctly tagged and only needed amending to suit your new info. I've corrected the parking tags to show it as an enclosed area for patrons.
Regards Bernard.

Duplication is removed

Hi. Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
You in part made a duplicate highway with the footpath. I've removed the duplicate section and tagged the short residential section as a PRoW.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
The features to which you've amended the tagging are not buildings nor bridges they are actually as they were tagged, buildings parts. Parts of the whole building as such they are drawn and tagged separately to make 3D modelling. The buildings and bridge structure are drawn separately from these 7 building parts.

I'm not sure if your other tags are correct or valid but the building tag should be reinstated and the bridge tag removed. It might be best to revert the changeset, if you need help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've looked again and I'm sure the path you added in this changeset is not FP10.
I was however wrong in my adding FP10 to the other track, that is actually FP26. The south west section of FP10 was not mapped. I've now corrected FP26 and added the whole of FP10, the paths are as per the definitive map. The definitive map shows FP10 starting by 159 Biggleswade Road :-(please click my maps on this link and zoom out a bit) http://my.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/mycentralbeds.aspx

So my query is still about the foot access on the track.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Sorry to say that track you added isn't FP10. The public footpath FP10 is further east. I've tags the path numbers and designations in the immediate area.
I removed name=FP10 (FP10 is actually a reference number not a name.
I'm not sure if foot access is allowed on the track if not could you please remove the tags.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I made a few amendments to your new path in order to enhance your valued contribution to OSM and help with your future edits. Namely to add path data, align path, make gaps in hedges, join path to roads at each end. Suffolk path data is here :- https://tinyurl.com/qr6sunz

Regards Bernard.

Hi George,
I understand new folks problems,
OSM has evolved to follow fairly regular patterns of mapping (good practice). Though a lot of folk disagree on some minor points, most mappers agree to stick to a worked out by consensus method. This is what I'm trying to put across.
I've now tagged the path correctly from your information so you can see it.
I notice that you might be using your GPS trace to draw the path. Your path line is not consistent with the aerial imagery available. Please be aware the GPS trace is likely to bounce about quite a lot. Therefore I've adjusted the path line.
You placed the bridge on the stream which like this has no relevance to the path. I've removed the stream bridge, then divided the path line, to insert a bridge on the path over the stream. The layer=1 tag indicates the feature (The bridge) is above any other feature it crosses over unjoined to.

You've deleted the section where RS50 was on top of another highway so I can't now amend that. If there's an existing way track or road that you want to amend to be a public path, say for instance RS50 runs down the unclassified Buckhole Farm Road.
Then the road tags could be amended to :- description=From Cooling Road (adjacent to Childs Farm) to Decoy Hill Road
designation=public_footpath
foot=yes
highway=unclassified
name=Buckhole Farm Road
prow_ref=RS 50
source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator
source=survey;Bing

Sorry the above is so long..
Regards Bernard.

Hi,
Adding the actual maxspeed would be a lot better than maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_restricted which does not state a restriction.

Also I I think you are mistaken with the road surface, it looks like asphalt rather than concrete.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You've placed RS50 on top of an existing highway. If a way needs amending the correct method is to amend the existing highway. Your duplication highway on top of highway will disrupt routing. Please remove the duplication, correct your mapping or revert this changeset.
I also see you are still adding fictitious names, RS50 is the highway reference number.
If you need any help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.