Hi,
The Old Mill Inn could probably be combined with a relation so there's not a duplicate, and building tags added as well. Or draw a way around the grounds and tag it as a pub?
I assume this should be ref=B9077, and a bridge over the stream? way/40967522

Why have you added this building?

I assume node/3012910526 is a duplicate of the health centre/doctors?

A hunting stand named "Simon" and parking named "house boot airb&b" - really?

Nice to have you back :)
Walking/cycle routes are mapped using relations, here's the WHW relation/16287 Looking at other routes, the individual paths don't have the route name, just the relation.
Rule of thumb for path versus track seems to be if it's wide enough for a vehicle highway=track
If that's the case, you might also want to change the bridges on the paths as well, eg: way/490705118

Thanks for the reply. If you look at the link and scroll down you'll see it was changed to tertiary (i.e. declassified) 3 years ago. This matches what OS shows and what's described in https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=B764

So I'm just wondering what's changed since then or is the previous edit (and OS) wrong? :)

You might have made it neater but you've removed some of the information from the map by deleting the old road and not adding the info to the new road, see: way/70610064/history
Also, why have you changed it to highway=secondary?

Hi, welcome to OSM.
Just to make you aware you don't need to add the WHW name to each path as they are part of a larger WHW route relation.
Also you've changed some tracks to path - why is that? Are they definitely not big enough for farm vehicles?

Here's one marked under construction with a ref: node/2296370179 - use the overpass-turbo link and click "run" to find more.

I'd seen lanes=1 used for narrow roads before, so it was a surprise when I read the wiki page saying the lanes tag was for marked lanes.

Unless you get your tape measure out and measure the width, lanes=1 or 1.5 judged by car widths are surely a better estimate?

You might want to remove these nodes: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/pfe and maybe add the ref to your nodes?
Also, did you check the offset for the DG imagery? Might not matter too much for power towers but usually it's a bit off compared to Bing.

Hi, thanks for extending NCN 6. However you've created a new relation, so I've merged it with the existing NCN relation.

If these are actually disused (ie rails still in place) they should probably be tagged railway=disused instead:
way/483069249
way/483067879
way/483454031
way/483454036

The abandoned/disused=yes is a discouraged method of tagging old features - they will still be rendered as railway=rail.
Either needs to be railway=abandoned or use the lifecycle prefix, abandoned:railway=rail.
So I've retagged them all as railway=abandoned :)

You've added way/482841757 and tagged it as disused=yes, but if it's not active it shouldn't be tagged as railway=rail. Looking at bing it should really be railway=abandoned instead

Any reason why you removed highway=tertiary in this way? way/3908325

Ok - if it's all open now you should remove the access=no from the entire road

Is this section meant to be access=no?

Doesn't seem to be a pond or park visible on the aerial imagery, are you just adding fake data to the map?

Hi Susan, welcome to OSM and thanks for the edit. It looks like this is a holiday cottage, is that correct? If so it could probably be tagged as tourism=chalet? See tourism=chalet