Removed several nodes tagged as crossing where there does not appear to be an actual crossing feature on the ground.
Regards Bernard

Hi, I've removed a few highways that you've duplicated. When a feature needs correcting/amending please do the edit to any existing features. This will ensure all history is kept and avoid duplication. I hope you are not copying from an OS walking map (1:25000 or 1:50000) as this will infringe copyright and is unacceptable on OSM.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
There's no need for the mapped car park area and a car park POI, it's just duplication of data.

Regards Bernard.

Hello Paula,
The problems highlighted by OSM Inspector look like they are all corrected. However there may still be the odd traffic hump that has an area dragged to it joining the hump, area and road together, this is a possible error but not classed as incorrect. (I just found corrected one such on Chaseville Park Road, school area was dragged to the hump.) Anyway looks good now and thanks for adding the traffic humps.

If you could detail the precise actions you used to map the humps in this changeset I might be able to work out what went wrong. I wouldn't use the "Join to way tool". An easy way to add traffic humps it to add a node to the existing highway line, precisely position it, then tag it.

Hang on, while writing this I've been trying to make JOSM create these anomalies. It appears that if you are zoomed out to far the join function will malfunction. Further if you have more than one node selected/highlighted then it is even more bizarre. So at least in some of your cases you could have had JOSM zoomed out to far when using the join tool.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, No response so I've removed the duplicated highways and tagged the two routes as best I can.

Hi, Please see my comments on your previous changeset regarding these POI. here :- changeset/90039567
The tagging of the two POI does not have a meaning as far as OSM is concerned. I explained the reason in my previous comment. If you could explain what you are trying to achieve maybe I could help with a suggestion.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I've added a few more tags to the area and used normal naming for the name tag, (not all capital letters).
The area is a recreation ground as suggested by it's name. Tagged correctly as landuse=recreation_ground it's rendered properly.
added the play area and no dogs tag.
Regards Bernard.

Hello Paula,
I'm pretty sure I've corrected all the problems that appeared on the first link (OSM Inspector Geometry, self intersections). But, this morning, OSM Inspector Routing, duplications has been updated and it shows a mass of duplicated sections of ways. (please see here :- https://tinyurl.com/yy4lb95t ).
Bear with me and I'll work through them. Please don't make to correct while I go through them or we'll have more problems.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I've added more detail to your POIs so they are more useful to folk and can be searched for on OSM. Please check the info is correct.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, There seem to be differing anomalies of the same happening. Some highway nodes are joined to areas of which some are associated with humps. Others are on highways where you've added humps.

It looks like you are creating a node, tagging it then joining it to the highway. If you then drag that node to another (better) position that move drags the highway line. Perhaps you are doing this without noticing it? However with some dragged nodes (thus self intersection of highway) there is not the expected tagged hump, though it is on the ground. Have you removed some humps because they look wrong?

I think it would be best if you limit features edited/added to one highway at a time, one highway edit one upload. This way you/I might be able to figure it out.

Of the many edits though a lot of them haven't been with mistakes so that's a good point.

You might when adding humps find it easier to add the node to the highway then tag that node. By the way some of these features are humps and some are tables.

Regards Bernard.

Hello Paula,
I've actually just now started rectifying some of the problems (starting at the south east). I'm correcting the self intersections marked on the link I sent and also amending the wider area. Re-aligning highways, un-joining highways from area lines and generally improving to the now very good aerial imagery.

With respect, it's a bit difficult doing this un-picking/amending of differing features. I'm happy to carry on with it but would understand your wish to make the corrections. So shall I carry on, it will take a day or two. Then if you make a just a few changes/edits on a changeset I could have a look at them. (It's always good to only have a few changes in an upload/changeset then you've a better chance to see mistakes.) In this changeset you made changes to over 350 features si stood no chance of seeing mistakes.

I'm running on, what do you think.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Sorry to say that you've somehow added a lot of self intersections with your mapping. Please see here :- https://tinyurl.com/y3r9w7zg Could you please rectify these errors. If you need help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hi the landuse=residential area is already mapped as a multipolygon. I've amended to remove the duplicate area implication.
Regards Bernard.

The residential area is within a larger residential multipolygon area. Thus this area is duplication, I've removed the duplication, added a POI for this place and updated the multipolygon area tags.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, to whom is the access permitted?

Hi, you only map a crossing if it is a formal feature of the highway. There are lots of paths crossing roads with no formal crossing point.

I joined some of the paths to roads. Added rail crossing.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I unjoined waterway from the bridge and boundary, reversed water direction, join waterways. Then tweaked some footways. all to suit OSM practice.

Hi, Just to let you know that usually there is no need for the tag oneway=no as this is implied by OSM by it's absence.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, in the absence of the tag oneway=no OSM usually takes it as implied that there is not a oneway restriction. Thus in this cast the tag oneway=no is unnecessary.

Regards Bernard.