Please slow down and take account of existing mapping.
When adding way/701095360 and crossing way/166262202 you have ignored the presence of node/1777223086 and node/1777223094.
The service road should obviously intersect the footpath between them.
Cheers Phil

What source are you using to map the Kennet and Avon Canal Trail in OSM?

If there is no on the ground verification, and we certainly cannot refer to most of the other maps you have quoted, it is not helpful to map users to direct them to take the B4385.
At best this should be tagged as an unsigned:ref.
Cheers Phil

Hi
Please ensure that you are using the latest imagery and mapillary. The gaps were closed some time ago.
Cheers Phil

Hi, there is no need to add station to the name of a station. We know what it is.
I have restored the correct name.

Hi, when converting a way with defined access rights to another please ensure you maintain those.
The bridleway link in the existing way information will show you that a bridleway implies also foot and bicycle access,
The correct tag for horses is horse=yes and note that OSM tags are lowercase.
Cheers Phil

Please could you explain why you believe that this is public right of way for motor vehicles, despite existing tags saying that there isn't?
The existing ways are tagged as
designation=public_footpath which is a legal definition indicating that this is most definitely not a right of way for motor vehicles.
There could well be private motor vehicle access here, for owners to access their properties or for those that they invite, such as someone delivering parcels.
Cheers Phil

Hi
Please could you tell me the source you are using for this change?
It seems very unlikely and I do not recall seeing any such signage.
Cheers Phil

What sources have you used which would suggest that this is a public right of way for motor vehicles?
Cheers Phil

What evidence do you have that way/164374734 is a public right of way for motor vehicles.
Cheers Phil

Please take your time when mapping and take into account the existing mapping. If you don't understand something look in the wiki or ask.

way/368889024 is tagged as a public bridleway which says there is certainly not publicly accessible by motor vehicle.

There may be private access to properties, but the chances of a track being a right of way for motor vehicles so please be very cautious when making such assumptions without actual evidence of it being a legal right of way.

Cheers Phil

Hi
You have added an incorrect weight restriction onto Kirby Road.
a. The sign at https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/8uLjLp2_bMUafgzf3l2ipw is indicating that the restriction begins in half a mile, not at the roundabout. The sign at this point is to indicate that this a a no through route for hgvs, but allowing access to industrial areas but preventing them from passing through residential areas.
b: The restriction does not apply to all vehicles over 7.5t, only goods vehicles (note the truck outline), We tag these hgv.
c: The actual restiction begins beyond The Mill Lane, see https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/xbGjY6yz_AxYlJ4o3Unmww.
d: The restriction is not a complete ban, it allows access for HGVs to make deliveries within the area.
This is tagged as hgv=destination.

The difficulty with mapping these restricted zones is knowing the boundaries, it is pointless to map little bits, the mapping needs to be complete.

From memory, and checks on mapillarythis zone is everything within THe Mill Lane, Scudamore Road, New Parks Way, Groby Road and Leicester Road.
Hope this helps, but please ask if you have any queries.

Cheers Phil

Hi Roger
I have restored the crossing.

If you want to have another go at adding the path then that would be good. It is easier to edit with your PC, touch screens are not really ideal for mapping unless you are using more specialist tools.
Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM and thank you for your contribution. However I am always a little concerned when a mappers first contribution is to delete another mappers work.
Please can you explain why you have deleted the tags from this crossing? I would be surprised if lowered kerbs have been removed.
Cheers Phil

Hi Alwyn
I have also noticed that when changing cycleway to path you have not added bicycle=yes which has resulted in broken bicycle routing, see osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_bicycle&route=51.3545%2C-1.9834%3B51.3542%2C-2.0013#map=17/51.35454/-1.98726&layers=N
When we consider that this is part of NCN 4, that is a very big problem for the integrity of OSM data.
Cheers Phil

Reverted in changeset/71535519

Hi Alwyn
Than you for your response but please can you answer the following questions

Where in OSM documentation does it say that shared use cyccleways should not be mapped as highway=cycleway?

You say that when you tried to save your work OSM said these were redundant, please can you tell me waht you mean by OSM and what message you recieved. The iD editor does occasionally give warning, but I have never seen on when mapping cycleways.

You added a name to way/268556695/ This is not the towpath, way/163500222 is the towpath at this point. Note it goes under the bridges.
However the name should only be applied if it an actual name of the way that is verifiable on the ground. If you are mapping a long distance route then the name should be part of the relation, not of every way.
You mention 'official' websites, do you have permission to use their information in OSM?

You may find osm.wiki/Path_controversy and @Richard/diary/20333 of interest.

Whilst OSM is a database and a blue line is the way a cycleway is mapped on one particular renderer.

I would appreciate your comments, I am also intrigued as to why someone from New Zealand is so interested in European towpaths.

Cheers Phil

Reverted in changeset/71535519

Hi Stefan
Welcome to OSM and thank you for your edit.

In order to get Hollybush House to show up on the map you will need a tag to describe it. I would suggest that you add amenity=care_home. I would not describe it as a clinic as that implies day visits only.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM. Thank you for your edit however names are for actual names, Pumping Station and Electrical Substation are descriptions and that should not be in the name tag.
Also some of the features you have mapped are not publicly accessible, I would tend not to map a staff canteen, but if it is on the map it needs to be mapped as private.
Also what sources are you using?
Cheers Phil