Again, all looks good to me

Hi, you requested a review of this edit.
Again, it looks good. Having a look at the aerial imagery, it seems that part of way/29734862 should actually be a road of some sort, or maybe the road is next to the path? If you have local knowledge you could add that in.

Hi there, it would be really helpful for other mappers if you could add a description to your changesets. I realise you're mapping on a phone, but even something fairly brief helps everyone else understand what changes you made and why.

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
These look good to me, the outlines look like they're nice and accurate to the satellite imagery.
If you know the addresses of any of them then it would be great to add that detail too.

Hi, you could change it to "disused:amenity"="telephone", rather than just removing that tag, if you think that's appropriate.
Also, unless the operator is in fact a company called "Not a telephone", then that tag should be removed.

Right, well even just adding the mountain you were editing on at the time would help a bit.

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Looks good, thanks for adding names (in this changeset and others).
Most of the roads had a fixme set, of "name?", I've removed this for all roads which now have a name.
Also, in some of the roads you marked as open (I think in another changeset) they still had their construction value set.
i.e. they were
highway=construction, construction=residential
and you had only changed highway to residential. So I removed the construction tag as that is now not needed.
One other thing, there are a few roads which have multiple parts and you've added the name to the main part of the road, but if it applies then could you also add it to the subparts. At least including Eider Avenue, Chaffinch Close, Jay Court, Daffodil Drive, Hillman Drive, Poplar Road, the first bit of Oak Way
Is the end of Woodlark Way open now?
That ended up being a long comment, but thanks again for the changes.

Hi, you requested a review of this change. It all looks good to me.

Hi, you requested a review of this change. It looks good, but you've used a non-standard value for the cycleway. There's only one other use of buffered_lane in the UK. Perhaps track would be better?
cycleway=*#Cycle_tracks

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