Hi, you requested a review of this edit.
As well as cycleway:left:oneway=yes I think you also need cycleway:left=(something), depending on what it is.

Hi, you've left the website on the Gratitude node from the previous restaurant, but it looks like everything else has been changed correctly.

Hi, you requested a review of this edit, it looks good to me.
It would really help others to understand what you'd mapped if you put a more detailed description, i.e. what did you update and why?

Hi, you requested a review of this edit.
Mostly looks good, just a couple of things.
The turn restriction relation/12103516 only has one member, but seems to be not needed as relation/12308049 seems to cover that.
I think that first one can just be removed then, I'll let you do that, unless you want me to?

Also, there are quite a few no u-turn restrictions here, the wiki suggests:
"Don't map turn restrictions that are the default for a given jurisdiction and are not signed"
and
"A no_u_turn restriction relation is primarily useful if the from and to members are distinct ways".
So unless there are specific signs, then I would say these aren't needed.

A couple in here that I was responsible for, thanks for spotting and fixing them

Reverted in changeset/99190135
Change access tags (which I have now done on the gate and roads in here) instead of deleting. In fact, that road was already tagged with access=no, so should not be routed along.

Reverted in changeset/99190065
As before, access may be impossible, but that's what access tags are for

I've reverted this in changeset/99189970
Again, change the access tag, don't delete roads that do exist (even if they are private)

Hi, I'm sorry that no-one has reviewed this sooner. You should not delete nodes or sections of roads because they are private, instead use the access tags, see access=* for more details.

I've reverted this change in:
changeset/99189748

Not sure if anyone else will check this, but those are exactly the changes I suggested, so I'm happy with this

Hi, you requested a review of this, and it all looks good to me

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Looks like you've got more edits than me, so I'm not sure how qualified I am to review this.
This change seems fine though, but just wondering why you removed the protect_class tag?

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
It looks good, thanks for adding this restaurant.
I've fixed the phone number as you shouldn't include the leading 0 when there's the +44 (which is correct to have)

Great, thanks for fixing this.
I think I wasn't clear enough, there's a specific space for specifying access (the "allowed access" section when you're editing, or the "access" tag), and this is what should be set to "private". I've fixed that for you here and also added some of the buildings round here.

Hi, it would be helpful if you could be more specific in your changeset description (all edits make changes), to help other people understand what changes you've made and why.

Hi, I can see you've done a few of these. Perhaps as well as changing the tag it would be good to add what it is, e.g. it seems to be grass here

Hi, you requested a review of this edit.
Thanks for adding this path, the tags look good on it. At the south east end you joined it to the wall, it would be best to connect it through to the road as well so that it can be routed along, where appropriate.
I've done that for you here.
Happy mapping!

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
It looks good to me, just a note, on way/216963293 you added that it isn't one way, this tag isn't really needed as that can generally be assumed (to save adding it on every single road)

Hmm, not sure if we've talked or not, I do feel like I've seen a few of your other accounts during my editing though.
When I edit I don't feel like it's too tricky to remember what I've done in each changset (maybe do smaller changsets?). And I assume there is some distinction between your various changsets?

Ah ok, no worries