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

Hi, you requested a review of this change. The path you've added looks good, so thanks for doing that.
In this changeset you also made a change to the core paths relation, changing it from hiking to foot. Just wondering why that was?

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

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Thanks for adding these, it's always good to have more buildings mapped.
Just a note, it's good to always square the corners where appropriate (right click, square), even for buildings that aren't rectangles. I've been in and neatened these up for you here.
Then it would be great to add addresses to any of these houses that you know.

Hi, you requested a review of this.
First, it would be easier to review if you had given even just a brief description of what you'd updated.

This bridge over the railiway you've tagged as steps all the way.
way/907770037/
I imagine that it isn't actually steps in the middle, so you should split it (add a point if needed, then right click and split) and change the type of the appropriate bits (and make sure the direction of the steps is correct after that). Also on the right hand side you've connected it to the building. Aerial imagery makes it look like it's just to the west of the building, in which case it should be disconnected and shown as separate.

I see that you've changed the station from being mapped as a point to being the building. It's good to have a station mapped as an area, but in this case the area should cover the whole of the station area, as it isn't just that building that's the station. See here:
public_transport=station#Usage

You've added a couple of islands:
e.g. way/907770032/
but you've tagged it as a traffic calming feature, which would be meant for a section of road.
I'm not quite sure what tag would best represent those things, maybe try searching the wiki. More useful perhaps would be to tag the crossings there and add detail to them: highway=crossing

That ended up being quite long, but lots of the changes in here were good and useful, so thanks for adding them and happy mapping!

This looks good

Hi, thanks for this.
Just a note on access, if general access is set as private then that implies the same value for all other modes of transport, they don't need to be set explicitly unless they are different to general.

Hi, noexit is for when it's not possible to continue by any mode of transport (see the wiki: noexit=* )
So in these places it does not seem to be suitable, as they are connecting to another road or a path.
node/8374458631/
node/7015660271/
node/8370771512/
If it isn't possible to get between those places then a barrier of some description should be tagged instead.

Mostly good, you had the roads connected to the grass though so I've disconnected that for you

Hi, you requested a review of this edit. It looks good to me. If the construction area is bigger than just where the building is then you could add an area for that.

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
I was going to ask why you deleted the service road, but you've since put it back, so this all looks good to me.

No worries

It's ok to have the website as a source, but also say that you've checked it in person.
I think it's ok to look at a website for a route, then go and confirm it in person and then add it.

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Thanks for keeping this bit up to date.
On here: way/155081015
you've left lots of tags relating to the car park. Also, this overlaps with the other park in this position. Perhaps this should be removed and the outline of the other park adjusted.
And does Playhouse Square really go through the park like that?

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Thanks for adding this, good to have up to date details on things like this.
The point you've added is very close to Virgo, are all the locations of the shops there correct? Are they all still there?

Hi, you requested a review of this change and it looks good to me
From aerial imagery it looks like it might be better tagged as a residential road than a minor/unclassified road.

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

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

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Is there something there now instead, or is the shop just vacant?
If it's vacant then you could have changed the point (or now just add a new point) and set it to shop=vacant, to show that.

Hi, you requested a review of this edit.
I think the copyright on that website means you can't just put things from there into OSM without checking if it exists in person. So if you go and do a survey and find signs on the ground for this, then it's fine to add, otherwise it should be removed.