That's quite alright. I did the same as what you did when I first started, and occasionally I still find them, and have to fix them.

The answer to that is no. There hasn't been a licence established for the use of that information. I assumed that because it did not derive from an OS (or other copyrighted) source, that it was fine to use. I've just sent an email to WSCC (and Lincolnshire CC cause I've used similar information provided by them too) for use of said information. Once I get a response from them I'll update it on his thread and on that wiki page.

Also you have put in some restrictions on turn which do not exist

The changes you have made to the Junction between the A57/B199 and the B199/B1273 I have recently corrected to follow the OSM guidelines, you have nearly reversed it back to how it was before, however messier. I'd suggest reading into the OSM guidelines for mapping junctions (especially for dual carriageways)
osm.wiki/Junctions
Typically, a traffic island doesn't warrant the two ways of traffic to be split (except at roundabouts), so the only bit that really should be mapped as a dual carriageway is exclusively B199 (Carholme Road).
Also turn lanes should not be mapped as a separate way if they are part of the same carriageway, which is what you have done for B199->A57WB
May I suggest to you to make changes for these junctions to become complaint with the OSM guideline.

That's what they are called in official documentation.
However will move to description because that's probably more appropriate

Although If you wish to change them to proposed since no actual ground construction has started, then feel free to do so

These are drawn out from the documents that in the planning application that has been approved. Works on the new roundabouts on the A264 are due to take place in Q2 of 2020.
Search for DC/16/1677 under Horsham District CC Planning Applications

We will have to see what others consus is on this one. Because the road will not be open for a substantial amount of time, it should be marked as "highway=construction", not just "access=no".
Yes the road, is already there, and just awaiting other roads nearby to be constructed to be opened, however recommendations on the wiki states that "only tag construction sites (particularly roads and railroads) if they are planned to be closed for at least six to nine months".
This is true in this situation, therefore should be marked as construction.

This one I can confirm is still accessible for construction vehicles, however attached to the southern roundabout of intercahnge

I agree with Acarlotti.
No need for these "service" roads off the DC

Why have you changed Broadbridge heath bypass from construction?
Has it reopened to traffic yet?

Can you describe your edit here??

I'll second ACarlotti's view on this.
I haven't been made aware from any sources (including official and unofficial) that this dumbell is fully open, or that the changes to the road numbers have happened.
If you don't respond with your sources within a couple of day it shall be reverted.

Oh one more thing. is the PROW beside Woolley road a bridleway or shared surface (i.e. foot/cycleway)?

Yeah that looks good now.
Obviously at the moment no-one really has the exact alignment of the A1 confirmed as sat img and gps traces are mostly out of date.
But that being said, it does look like you moved it onto its new alignment pretty well.
I'll be driving on this section of the A1 on Wednesday, so i'll get my GPS recording so ensure that the A1 correctly follows its new alignment.

You have given the new road the class of "secondary"
I believe this is a mistake, according to its construction tags it is meant to be unclassified.
In the UK Secondary must only used used for B class roads, however exceptions can be used.
Also you used the link variant, which is for primarily used for slip roads/ramps that link two larger roads together, and not for a road that links two parts of the same road together.

All looks okay now.
However 1 thing. Junctions are still "motorway_junction", which is actually existing on the all the A14 numbered junctions. Maybe these should just be junction=yes and (for example) name=Ermine Street J23 ???
OSM does say it's normally for Motorway, but can be applicable for Trunk.

Although buildings are meant to be buildings and not room, there isn't too much issue with the naming of buildings you have done.
But "Path To 3G" and "Run Up" shoudn't be tagged with that that.
See osm.wiki/Naming_conventions

Those buildings were actually the new ones that were going to be built there....

This doesn't look right.
Are you sure this way is real, and if so is an actual "motorway"
In the unlikely event that it is, please use the "bridge=yes" or "tunnel=yes" tags.