Hi, you requested a review of this, happy to say that it all looks good to me. Happy mapping!

Hi, you requested a review of this.
Thanks for adding this path, that bit all looks good.
For the bridge I would say it depends on how it's laid out.
If the path is essentially a pavement at the side of the road on the bridge, then best to connect the path to the road either side of the bridge (not at the point the bridge starts though) and then use the sidewalk tag on the bridge: sidewalk=*
And probably also tags like foot=designated and designation=public_footpath (which could be added for the whole path if it's a signed public footpath).

If there's no connection between the path and the road then drawing a separate bridge round both would be best, see here for details: man_made=bridge

Thanks for doing this, looks good

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Thanks for adding this, it's always good to have up to date details of new developments.
Just a couple of things to note, first you should use "addr:housenumber" for the number (the address field with "123" in the background). You initially used name, then "addr:housename".
Also, best to add the street too.
In addition, it's good to square the corners of buildings (right click and select square).
I've been in and fixed those things for you here.

If the construction is now fully complete then you could change the construction area to a residential area.

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Mostly looks good, thanks for adding these details.
Just wondering why you removed the name from way/707296966 ?
You seem to have only just added it.

Also, when adding buildings it's best to give them square corners (right click and select square).

Hi, you've requested a review of this change.
Couple of comments, when you add paths and roads, they need to connect to each other so that they can be routed along with directions. I've connected those paths for you here.
Also, on the path: way/29734862
you've added a non-standard value for the surface. It's best to stick to the standard values so they can be understood by everything that uses the data, see here for commonly used values: surface=*

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

Hi, you requested a review of this. It looks good to me, thanks for updating this.
My only comment would be that you've left the tag of atm. If this isn't a bank then I assume there's no cash machine there now, so that could be removed.

Great, it would probably be good to update the outline of the construction area then, and replace suitable parts with residential areas.
Then adding addresses to all of the houses would be great (but require a bit of effort I know).

Hi, you requested a review of this edit.
Thanks for adding this detail, always good to have more things on the map.
Couple of things to note, first What3words addresses can't be put into OSM, see here for details:
osm.wiki/What3words
Therefore I've removed those from the three buildings.
Also I can see what you're trying to achieve with the outline round the cottages, but the best thing would be to mark it as a residential area.
In addition, you could add the outlines of the buildings, and add the address details to them, instead of just being points. (Use "addr:housename", instead of name there).
If you want to add more detail, then a retail area round the cafe area would be good, and the car park too.

Actually, just this building:
way/906809910
You've given it a rather jagged corner, which doesn't match what I'm seeing in the aerial imagery

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