I'm not sure if the cycleways are definitely one way (can't remember precisely), some were wide enough for two way passage. One should be able to tell from Mapillary images.
As to use 'use_sidepath' - I'm not familiar with signage and/or Belgian law too know if that is the case. I'll leave that to those with more experience to improve that detail.

Thank you

It was readings from a GPS device / saved waypoints/tracklog. I see you have moved the subsequently added 'peak' (i.e. not necessarily much prominence in my opinion) that was by another user. The height readings from OS 1:25K 1st Series, albeit in feet are probably more accurate, although my reading aren't too different.
One could/should combine the peak + trig point into one node.

Sandwiches ready to eat, so current tagging is more accurate than my initial effort years ago.

LOL :)

Oops. Typo in the postal code.
Fixed now.

Yes, indeed they are.
Thanks for spotting this and raising the issue - it has now been fixed.
changeset/131120460

Indeed, not quite sure what happened there - I didn't intend to edit that memorial/put that tag in.
Fixed now in Changeset #120451412.
NB 'Charlton Musgrove' is a nearby village.
Thanks for noticing!

Yes - checking my notes it is meant to be DT9 3.
Probably a typo, now fixed.
Thanks for noticing.

NB You can use the 'capacity' tag to indicate how many bicycles can be parked. Typically for 4 stands, you can get a bicycle each side, so the capacity is 8.
capacity=*
HTH.

The changes all look good to me.
Thanks for the improvements.

Thanks for the prompt response.
I've made the improvements -
changeset/91942503

For this path you've put in a level crossing (but not on the railway) however Aerial Imagery, in particular Bing, suggests there is a foot bridge here. I don't remember whether there was a foot bridge since I was on the nearby road.
Can you confirm there is still a bridge here?
(And is the path a public footpath?)
As you are new to OSM, I can always improve this edit/area if you not confident on the best way to edit.

Fixed. It is 176, I didn't read my my own notes properly!
Thanks for the heads up.

Hello.
This changeset seems a bit unclear on what it actually trying to achieve.
The visible results are seemingly duplicate ways and probably unecessary changes to some administrative boundary lines.
See various notes raised as a result of this change such as - note/2231698

I suggest this changeset should be reverted.