Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I made the cycleway and old railway same line, removed layer and building tag from the garden center area. Also split the lake into two at the causeway.

Regards Bernard.

Correction to building tags

correction to spelling

Hi Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I just wanted to let you know that in the absence of a oneway=no tag OSM takes it as implied that the way is not oneway. So in most cases the oneway=no tag is not needed.

Regards Bernard.

My apologies for being blunt with my comments I never meant to put out a condescending tone, merely to point of facts.

I did actually remove the two POI but you have added them back.

Sayers Court is named and the label will appear once OSM has re-rendered at all zoom levels. The other buildings south and east of Sayers Court are not named so will not be labelled.

Your input is in no way humble indeed it is very well intentioned, unfortunately it isn't to OSM best practice and will not have the effect you desire.

Regards Bernard.

If you click on the links I sent you'll see one goes to Sayers Court https://tinyurl.com/ybc5jrsq

The other goes to Lexden Place https://tinyurl.com/ybk9vdsg

The link you posted above correctly routes from in the shortest manner from 51.88992, 0.85812 on Lexden Road to 51.89005, 0.84778 a point on the service road front of Sayers Court building. There is nothing wrong with the routing.

The problem you are experiencing is that when routeing to a point that is not on a highway, most if not all routeing software will jump to a point on the nearest highway to the end point. Your two POI will have no more influence over this fact than the two buildings.

Regards Bernard.

Duplicated information, as you've been told before, more than this information is on the building outline. These POI do absolutely nothing to resolve the problems with routeing.

The tag tourism=apartment is used to map a holiday or vacation apartment, so your POI is doubly false and misleading.

Hi, These are private apartment blocks, nothing at all to do with tourism and also the POI are incorrectly placed. The fuller and correct information is on the mapped buildings so there is no need to duplicate the information on POI's.

OSM must reflect ground truth it must not be used as a means to correct defective routeing software. Depending on the routeing software in use it may take a long time before the updated buildings are used for the routing. Features in OSM must be verifiable, the data in these two POI are not verifiable. The routeing on the OSM front page to Sayers Court https://tinyurl.com/ybc5jrsq is correct. The routeing to Lexden Place https://tinyurl.com/ybk9vdsg is correct.

If you know the incorrectly routeing software please direct a complaint to them.

Regards Bernard.

Added website from above comment and address to the POI.

Hello Phil,

You made a duplication at the west end between gate an footpath junction. I've amended this so it's OK now.

For the driveway Way: 30635767 access=no can't be correct else how is Lake Lodge accessed, I changed it to access=private.

At the gate to the east end, tagged just barrier=gate does not allow for any access at all! This must at least be access=private, which I've added. However I cannot determine how the designated foot accesses the gate. Do pedestrians pass through the gate? Or is there a separate gate or even a gap for pedestrian access PRoW?

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Yes that's correct, unless one looks up changeset history or scrutinises aerial imagery. The concern is that you've deleted something that is actually there on the ground. Seemingly for singular personal reasons. Another OSM contributor took the trouble to map the crossing and footpath, They may actually have used it, they did in fact upload a GPS trace along the track.There's several more GPS traces along the track as well.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, If the railway crossing is private why delete it? It ought to have been properly tagged do folk would know it's private. They're not going to look up your changeset comment to find out.
Regards Bernard,

Hi, I've un-joined the Upper Thames Sailing Club area from the center of the railway line.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, there is private vehicle access down this track so motor_vehicle=no is incorrect. I've changed it to motor_vehicle=private.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, I removed access=no tag from the footpath, there is public access to the footpath. Add bridge over the stream.

Changed layer=-2 to layer=1 on bridge part. Remove bridge=yes from bridge structure, (only bridge as a highway has bridge=yes).

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I wonder how you are aware that Way: 296927558 is a permissive route? Secondly to what mode of traffic is it permissive?

I've corrected the status of the track from Dobbs Lane as per the NCC map.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I made a few amendments to your mapping

Remove layer tag (not neede here), reinstate playground tag (it is a childs playground not a park), remove tree node from admin boundary line, remove recreation ground outline (it's already mapped).

Regards Bernard.

Hi, you forgot to cut a section of path out where the bridge is. Thus both footway and bridge crossed the stream. (I think you did this on one of the other bridges.)
I've not amended this path, just added a node and pulled path to the side so you can see it. Would you like to amend the path, if not I'll do it later.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Streams OK, try not to join the stream to the bridge, (one passes over the other without joining. For info fords do join path to stream.
Regards Bernard.