Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your recent changes here. Looks great, no problems! One minor tip is that we can add the informal=yes tag to these paths to show that they aren't maintained (instead they only exist because people walk over them.) I also removed the name tag from them so it's clear they aren't part of the real Lake Overlook Trail.
Also, in the future, for edits like this it's usually good to provide a source for your info. (Local knowledge or in-person observations are excellent, valid sources.)
Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Looks great! Nice micro-mapping!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change here. Looks great! One minor tip is that for rectangular features, you can select it and hit "Q" on your keyboard to square it up. That makes it look much nicer (and often you can draw things more sloppily and let the square feature fix it for you!)

Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, a couple suggestions here, if I may - Since the building still exists we'll want to keep some sort of building=* tag. Also, (I had to look this up) - The wiki recommends to avoid having the old name on a shop=vacant feature. shop=vacant?uselang=en#How_to_map

I went ahead and fixed those. Let me know if you disagree (I'm open to discussion, of course!) or have questions! Thanks for your contributions.

Hello again! This changeset also looks super. One additional tip is that if it seems like thru traffic is not allowed here, ie it's a private road, you could also add access=private so that routing engines won't try to send travelers through there. But that's just an extra piece of info you might add when appropriate - not a requirement.

Thanks again for your contributions, and happy mapping.

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. No problems I can see! I think footpath is great here, but in the future one thing to keep in mind is that you can also add access tags to show who can travel without actually reclassifying the way, if that makes sense. So in the hypothetical scenario where there really was a roadway, but only foot traffic was allowed, you could put
motor_vehicle=no
foot=yes (or foot=designated).

Again though, from what I can tell, in this case footpath works great here. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi! Looking at your name change here, it seems like you're wanting a description of your business "martial arts school" to be in the name field. In OpenStreetMap, we use other tags to describe attributes of a feature. The name= tag is only for the actual official or "common" name for the feature.

I went ahead and reclassified that road.

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks good overall, but there is an issue. The turning circle you've added is tagged as highway=primary. That typically means it's a major highway, freeway, or similar. So in this case, highway=service would be the better choice. Other than that, no problems! Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good to me. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I did my best to look over your changes. Looks good generally, nice job! The only suggestion I have is to submit your changes before moving on to another area. That makes it much easier for others to review your changes. More info: osm.wiki/Bounding_box#Bounding_Box_Size
Thanks for your contributions!

Great addition. Thanks!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Generally, everything looks great! The only major issue is that Google Maps can't be used as a source for any info going into OSM. I see that you also added local knowledge as a source - that's excellent. I think in this case there's no need to revert anything since it seems like you've reviewed this in person, but in the future you'll def want to avoid copying data from google maps.

A couple other improvements here are to adjust the farmland area nearby to reflect the new residential area, and to add an outline shape to the apartments. I went ahead and did those.

Let me know if you have any questions. And thanks for your contribution!!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks great to me, except that since the road still exists in real life, it should have some highway=* tag. I think highway=service makes sense here. And access=private like you've done is great!

I went ahead and added that. Let me know if you have any questions! Thanks for your contributions.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great, no complaints from me! Thanks for your contributions!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here, and in some of your other changesets. Things look great overall, but looking at this one it seems like some of these "sidewalks" are actually just highway shoulder. Rapid can make it really easy to just blindly add stuff without verifying, but we should be double-checking each change.
Let me know if you disagree or have any questions. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great! Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great! I see that you tagged this outer area as a giant building, but it looks like you fixed it already.

Thanks for your contributions!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over this changeset. Everything looks great! I was about to suggest that you connect driveways to the street, but looks like you already realized and fixed that. Thanks for your contributions!

(See my comment on your other changeset first.)
So OSM has a principle called "Any Tags You Like" [0] that basically says you can make up new tags to describe verifiable features. However, it's generally recommended to instead create a tag proposal or use existing, already-in-use tags instead.

So, if another mapper could come along and see some kind of net features here, then great! In that case I'd recommend finding or creating more descriptive tags to describe these physical features.
But if someone couldn't (theoretically) verify the nets in-person then arguably this data doesn't belong in OSM. [1]

Also, I acknowledge that OpenStreetMap is a community, so people are going to disagree, so while my comments might reflect the general consensus, other contributors might disagree with me. :)
Let me know if you have any questions, thanks again!

[0] osm.wiki/Any_tags_you_like
[1] osm.wiki/Verifiability