Hi, just wondering why you removed the foot=designated tag from this road?

Hi, on this changset you've added a source of "OS 1:25k" to way/437076501
Is this a historical map, or a recent one? I'm sure you're aware that you can't copy other copyrighted maps into OSM.

Hi, it would be great if you could be more specific in your changeset descriptions. I can't tell everything you've done here, but maybe something like "Adding areas of scree and bare rock and..." would help other mappers to understand what you've done, and then the difference between all of your changsets.

Ah ok, great

Ha, nice one.
Often single things are broken into several parts on OSM, either because different parts have different properties (such as width, or number of lanes on a road) or just to break things into manageable parts.

Hi, you requested a review of this.
You'e only changed the name, and that seems fine. I don't have any local knowledge, but I'm presuming you do and that's why you've changed it. This stream is mapped in several parts, there are sections running north west from here still called "Fleak Water", so do change them too if that name is incorrect.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
You requested a review of these changes.
In this case, the roads you deleted should still be on the map as they do exist. It seems though that their access should be tagged as private.
Also, the name tag is only for the name as on signposts, not a description.
If you're not confident in reverting the changset or adding the service roads back in then let me know and I can do so (this also applies to some of your other recent edits.

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
This looks good to me. Is the construction still ongoing? Or can the construction area be changed to a residential area now?

Hi, you requested a review of this changset.
This looks good to me too, looks like you've added lots of appropriate details

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
It looks good to me, looks like someone missed removing the fixme tag a while ago.

Hi, you requested a review of this edit.
Looks good to me. If there's anything new there now, then it would be good to add that.
If in fact it's essentially an abandoned cafe then perhaps it could be tagged as disused:amenity=cafe.
Also, if there's nothing public there now then it would be best to remove the other tags related to the cafe business, specifically internet_access, outdoor_seating and fhrs_id.

Hmm, in that case it's probably best to remove the "no" tag, and leave it up to routing software to decide what's best to route.
In this case you should add tags for that.
way/129775961 has max speed tagged, but way/85395164 doesn't.
Neither have the existence or otherwise of the pavement tagged.
See sidewalk=* for how to tag pavements (the sidewalk tag is used). If there are none here then sidewalk=no would be best.

Hi, you requested a review of this.
Thanks for updating here, if this whole area is now a construction site then you could change the outline of those ways to reflect that.

No worries. I thought it was, but also wanted to double check since you'd requested a review.
Here you'd actually also moved the edge of the field (the field and the path were stuck together). I've been in and fixed that for you.
Happy mapping!

Great, no worries

Hi, you requested a review of this edit.
It looks good, to me as you've only changed the name.
Are the opening hours the same as before?

Hi, you requested a review, and this looks good. It would be best to square the corners (right click and select "square")
I've done that for you here.
Also, it you know the addresses of nearby houses then please add them too
Happy mapping!

Hi, you requested a review of this edit and it mostly looks good, thanks for adding this path.
Just a couple of things, first the name should only be used if that is actually a signposted name, what you've put looks more like a description.
Also, you should leave the general access tag unset (rather than "no" which you put), since it's tagged as cycleway the fact that there's no access to cars is implied by that.

This edit looks good too, assuming that pedestrians are not allowed on those roads (tagging the access as no means they're not allowed, not just that it isn't advised).

Hi, you requested a review of this edit and I'm happy to say it all looks good.
Welcome to OpenStreetMap and happy mapping!