Does the path that you have added running beside the A272 actually exist, while I haven't personally been look for it, I'm pretty sure that it is just a grass verge. and the bridge over the stream has vehicle restraint barriers adjacent to the road. Roads are roads, they allow pedestrians on them by default, however routing software typically tries to avoid A & B roads (especially primary routes such as the A272) them unless they have low speed limits (maxspeed=xx mph) and/or pavements (sidewalk=left/right/both)
By adding a path here, routing software will suggest people to walk along here, which certainly isn't a good idea, as there are much better alternatives (I've ended up cycling on the A1 because someone put a cyclepath next to the A1 where there wasn't one for example)
sidewalk=*
If you need help understanding this, or anything else with OSM you can always send me a PM

Welcome to OSM Hop Scotch. May I ask you to add a comment to the changes sets please, it makes it easier for others to see what's been changed.
I am fairly familiar with path you added called "Open Glade", however I haven't seen it ever on the ground, nor on a map (as a PRoW). What is the source of this trace (GPS, aerial imagery etc) and what is the source of the name (sign, map, personal knowledge etc).
Also what are the access permissions on this path? Is it public, permissive, private etc?
I'll also make some comments on your other changesets too, I'm not trying to scare you off (last thing I want to do), I just want to make you aware of the standards (which unfortunately aren't straight forward) to ensure the map reflects the ground and access permissions in the best possible way.

How come the motor vehicle access has changed from destination to permissive Madeira Drive? (w/165405326)
But remain as destination on the shorter ways off the roundabout?

I'm just saying that the tags were correct before hand and followed the UK's "Alternative tagging style", which also so happens to be the standard international tagging guidelines as well. So changing it to "highway=cycleway" with the additional segregated, foot & bicycle tags make some of those those tags redundant.
not sure if it is how the iD editor shows differences between cycleway, footway & bridleway and therefore the edit was done to satisfy how the gui shows these ways on iD editor.

Shared Cycleways should be marked as "highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=no"
or "segregated=yes"
"highway=cycleway" is for ways that are designated only for Cyclists, however there may be permissive access for pedestrians (which would be "foot=yes" or "foot=permissive".)
Previously to your edit, the tags followed the guidelines, since your edit it doesn't. Regardless of being "highway=path" or "highway=cycleway" in most cases it doesn't affect routing or the rendering of the map.

Thanks for clearing that up!
I've combined all the parts of the path into the same way and connected it to the bridleway to the south (it was connected to the district/county boundary before)

Can you please verify access on this new path.
Is it really bicycle=yes & horse=no.
Is it paved? Is it a shared surface (blue round signs)? Is it a bridleway (or part of the bridleway)?

Can I have confirmation that the public footpath has been reopened please.

What exactly is this way (802465549) meant to be?
I presume it is meant to show a grass verge of the road that people can use to get from the pavement south of the railway bridge to the PRoW towards Holmbush Cottages. If it is this, then it shouldn't be mapped as it's own way.
There isn't really a way to map this, but applying a path beside the road and naming it "verges" isn't correct.
Try splitting the way and then apply foot=yes, horse=yes, cycle=yes to that section. If that section of Rocky Lane is also a PRoW apply designation=public_footway (or public_bridleway) too

Description of paths/footways should be under the "description" tag, and not the "name" tag.

Is the footway/path around Cape Road actually open? Last time I checked it was all still a construction zone, not looking it it would be open for at-least a year. If the path isn't yet open please mark (or request me to mark) it as highway=construction & construction=footway {or} path.
Also where it runs as a pavement of Cape Road, with no verge between the main carriageway and the pavement it should be marked as a "sidewalk" of the road, rather than its own way.

replaced all maxspeed=variable to maxspeed=70 mph.
This tag was like this before my edit, and currently doesn't have mandatory variable speed limits anyway. (has tech for them fitted, but no legal authorisation for their use, only recommended varialbe speed limits) so no variable maxspeed tag has been applied

Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed

No response yet

Thanks for pointing it out.
Fixed now

If you are going to be making changes in the UK, please describe the changes in English.

I'd imagine applying the tag to the whole building (w/10371164) would be more appropriate for now. With a note on it.

And regards LCC data, I don't think much was. just the justification of some roads being tertiary instead of unclass. However, at somepoint I'll send them an email explicitly asking if the C road classification information could be used on OSM (in a commercial sense), however only strictly the Boolean value of it being or not being a C class road, with no further information used.

Nothing from them yet.
Historically they do sometimes take weeks to respond. I contact them on a somewhat frequent basis, although sometimes they respond in a few days.With the current situation going on its probably not their highest priority.

You've separated each residential area of Haywards Heath and put them as relations within the relation of Haywards Heath, however you have missed off 781446703
781446703 Is still a part of Haywards Heath, and I'd also suggest Bolnore Village being part of the Haywards Heath relation too.
Kind regards, Thomas