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

Hi, you requested a review of this and it looks good to me.
My only comment is that it would be helpful if your changeset description was a bit clearer as to what you've corrected.

Looks good to me

Looks good

Looks good

This looks good too.
Again, a better description would be appreciated.

Hi, you requested a review of this.
It seems that the road you added would be better marked as a service road, and could also extend a bit further, right into the car park. You could also map the outline of the car park too.

Hi, you requested a review of this and it looks good to me.
Just a comment, it would be nice if you could be more specific in your changeset descriptions.
i.e. here you could have said something like "Added apartment building"

Hi and welcome to OSM! You requested a review of this and it all seems good to me.

Hi, you requested a review of this and it looks mostly good to me.
Your changeset comment seems to have been cut off a bit.
In your comment you've linked to Google Maps, but remember we can't copy things from there (including not copying from street view) into OSM (you very much imply local knowledge so I'm sure you haven't).

At the moment, the path cuts through fences, so they should be corrected.

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
If there's a pavement along the road, then you might consider the cycleway or sidewalk tags:
cycleway=*
sidewalk=*

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

Hi, you requested a review of this and it mostly looks good to me.
Just a question about the item you've named "Bloop", way/128135013/
You removed the shop tag from it.
What sort of thing is it now?

Just happened to spot them and couldn't leave something that broken!

And here and in other changesets you've added "footway"="footway=no" to a lot of ways. I'm not sure what you were aiming for with these, and they had a mixture of foot access tags set so I've simply removed the tag on all of the ways.
You can review my change here:
changeset/100584689

Hi, in this and other changesets you broke lots of junctions. You set the highway tag to "foot=no".
i.e. "highway" = "foot=no"
instead of e.g.
"highway" = "primary"

I've been round and fixed all of these that I could find using overpass turbo, but do feel free to review my change:
Mostly in: changeset/100584263
Also a couple of individual junctions before I realised how many there were:
changeset/100582368
changeset/100582444

See my other comment about surface

The comment about unpaved was meant to go on your other changeset, but the squaring corners definitely applies here.

Hi, you requested a review of this and it looks good to me.
It's surprising that it's unpaved, but you seem to have local knowledge of that. Maybe there's a more specific tag that could be used? See here for details: surface=*

You seem to have done lots more mapping nearby too, which is great. Just a comment, make sure you always square the corners of the buildings (right click, square, or 'q') as it makes everything much neater. I've been through and done that for you on most of the houses in the immediate area here.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
You requested a review of this.

Thanks for adding all of this detail, all helpful stuff to have, and it looks like you've tagged things correctly.

Couple of comments:

For apps and things to route along paths it's important that they join up with other paths, e.g. at the end of this path way/908955191

The warnings you had about paths highways crossing waterways should be fixed, e.g. here: way/908955145/ it looks like the path is a bridge for part of it, so you should split the path up and tag the middle bit as a bridge.

There were a few paths there already, which may need to be adjusted, but again it's important to incorporate them, and not duplicate features next to them, e.g. at this bridge way/250691098/