Fixed the typo and added the office.
I mean you could still have a private car park with a name, though I've changed it to operator.

Not sure if office=training_center is the best tagging for this - US spelling :) and not used elsewhere. Though would be good to have a consistent approach to theory centre tagging

Thanks, makes sense. I've added the short path around the side to make it clear way/1106889139

Hi, if this is a locked gate is there really 24/7 bike or foot access?

Hi, just be careful when updating brands as these are not banks.

Hi, what was the reason for changing the A772 to a living street?

Tried to do some routing along the canal and this node was causing issues as it had bicycle=no: node/32953416/history
Found this pic: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6760617 - would you say it is accessible enough to bikes to remove the "no"?

Fixed it as it looks like you made the whole thing a lake :) Select both the big area and the area to cut out, then press C to combine.

Is this still an active phone box? (if not the amenity tag should be removed)

Have the cafe and bike shop in Tiso gone?

Hmm yeah, looks like there's a line running through Bing at the school, to the south it's misaligned and things are angled. I've used 2.4,-2.7 for the buildings to the north so they should all be fixed :)

Not sure what has happened here with the building you've added - the shapes seem ok but most of them are out of alignment with both Bing and the existing OSM data, e.g. way/1099901742
Before you start mapping it's worth fixing any offset the aerial imagery might have - turn on the OSMUK cadastral parcels layer and align Bing with the blue lines.

Sorry for the delay in replying. Think that quote in the editor help is shortened from here: bicycle=yes - which says it is "applied where cycling is legal" - so not the case for this footway.
I understand why you would want to use it (I'd probably also use it as a shortcut) however we need to map what is on the ground, in terms of actual legal access restrictions.
Routers such as cycle.travel and Komoot can already direct you to dismount/push in some sections, so maybe suggest that to the developer of the app you are using? Or ask the council to make it shared use? :)

Ok - but we cannot use Google Street View as a source to add things to OSM, so you should wait until you've surveyed or have another acceptable source before adding.
In case you're not aware Bing Streetside imagery (and Mapillary) is available in the editor for use in OSM, so you might be able to confirm markers using it - for example: https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=4baff3d5-2b8e-40ae-a48d-cac0101e2c7f&cp=56.216443~-2.887277&lvl=19&dir=345.34268&pi=-9.232215&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027

Not on the pavement you added, the shared use bit stops here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=918575715621153 - there's no signs between there and the roundabout, plus Sustrans/Fife Council have it mapped as an on-road section. Unless I've missed someone on mapillary?

Please don't connect the landuse to the roads.

What is the evidence that these footways are shared use?

Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for adding these details. I've fixed the "Sat"->"Sa" here. If you are doing surveys it's worth turning on the map notes layer osm.org/#map=14/56.3966/-3.4446&layers=N to see if there's any notes you can help resolve in Perth.

This was originally a footway - what was the reason for adding bicycle=yes, is there a blue sign making this shared use?

The steps and path are marked as access=no way/552866977 so not sure why you have added access=yes to the gate?