Landuse needs surveying properly. My recollection is there there are no meadows around Leadenham - it's just regular agricultural land (mostly arable, some grazing).

The Bing imagery here is currently offset to the south by 5m or so, and unfortunately this does not seem to be have been taken into account by recent "non-surveying" mappers.

Things need shuffling north to match reality (the actual amount varies by location).

Check for any signage that might justify the name of way/40961536 as current. I suspect there won't be any - if there isn't any evidence for the name it should be removed.

Is this path really called this? It looks more like a description than a ame.

The imagery suggests that way/316741487 should be abandoned rather than disused - is it possible to check properly from the footpath to the south, or does the relative level of the path and rail line make this impossible?

There are duplicate "Potterhanworth Heath" here (with slight spelling differences) - node/2663469087 and node/2653706497 . I'm guessing in reality there is no such verifiable place, and someone has just copied some text from an OS OpenData_StreetView map.

The access rights on way/322875404/history need checking. The footpath to the south is a public footpath, as is the one to the north, but this section is allegedly only permissive. My recollection of this area is that the section where this note is is PF, but although the PF is signed north everyone takes the shortcut (actually the signed PF may not be accessible - or I may be thinking of the access at osm.org/#map=18/53.14654/-0.52668&layers=QN). Anyway - needs a survey.

As drawn, the landuse here is misplaced. The fence to the west of the footpath way/273674141 is the boundary between the farmyard with the buildings in it (to the east) and the farmland (not meadow as I recall) to the west. Needs redrawing properly.

Something odd seems to have happened to way/4902282/history - it's been deleted. It overlapped way/4902133 (which has very odd tags, and probably needs a proper survey to see what it is), but the tags that were on way/4902282/history aren't duplicated.

More duplicate copied-from-OS-StreetView alleged localities here - there are 4 "Coleby Low Fields". I'm guessing that in reality these do not exist. Needs checking to see if any of them actually are verifiable on the ground. If they don't, and only exist for historical reasons in OS maps (which are a pretty unreliably source of locality names), they don't below in OSM.