Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I've amended you tagging of the two premises to suit OSM practice. Please have a look for future reference.
Regards Bernard

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Have the houses been demolished and gardens removed where you've placed Melville Park?
Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've changed the number back to the format as on the college website. There should be a space after the country code. Some country's don't need the leading 0 for the area code so it's best presented in brackets thus acceptable in all countries.
Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
OSM is not a site to post to let adverts, there are many other places where this can be accepted. Also just name=73 COLLIER - 2,720 SQ FT MEDIA FLOOR TO LET 00442079357777 is not enough description for a business so I've removed the node.
If you need any help editing OSM please just ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I think you're mistaken by thinking this is a wilderness area. Actually right there is a house which I've mapped for you.
The hut would be in the bedroom thus not verifiable by other OSM users so I've removed it.
Regards Bernard

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Please check out this page :-building:levels=*, to see the apartments pitched roof ought to be tagged roof:levels=1.
Regards Bernard

Hi, I doubt the water tank is named 'Water storage tank', if it is the name should be capitalised.
If Cannock Crescent is completed the construction=residential tag should be removed.
A multipolygon relation is not needed for the residential area, I removed it and combined the two segments to form one area.
Added layer tag to the bridge.
I removed addr:housename=Matlock Way from the grass area.
Will you be amending the field produce tag if/when the crop changes, (it could be ploughed next season).
Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I removed your POI because you have the same data (and more) on the area outline. Thus the POI was duplicating information.
Your manner of tagging the outline is OK but the address tags are unnecessary as this information can be deduced from other data.
Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I removed your POI because you have the same data (and more) on the area outline. Thus the POI was duplicating information.
Your manner of tagging the outline is OK but the address tags are uneccessary as this information can be deduced from other data.
Regards Bernard

All the Best

Hello, you added Way: 600436669, a footway but tagged it foot=no. Any reason for this or is it accidental?
Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
The name is OK, the map has to re-render before the name appears. Also, your browser might be stuck on an old cached tile, reload the page or clear your browser cache.

I wonder though why you describe the highway as service=No_Through_Road the tag value "No_Through_Road" in incorrectly presented, as far as I'm aware is not recognizable. Plus you've attached your new highway to the highways at each end, thus making it a throughway. A no through way must be interrupted with a barrier of some sort or have a restriction or just not be joined at one end.

Is the bollard (not joined to any highway), beside Riley Road meant to be a barrier on a highway?
If you need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Your two new footpaths are not joined to the rest of the highway network. They thus have limited value as they cannot be routed to of from any other highway. They should preferably join onto other ways at each end, it would be a rare occurrence if they do not physically join up.
Regards Bernard

removed wood from within wood

Hi, to be of real value the track ought to integrate with the overall network of highways. As it is it can't be routed on so is minor value to the whole scheme of things.
Regards.

Hi, to be of real value the track ought to integrate with the overall network of highways. As it is it can't be routed on so is minor value to the whole scheme of things.
Regards.

Hi, to be of real value the track ought to integrate with the overall network of highways. As it is it can't be routed on so is minor value to the whole scheme of things.
This one crosses another way with no join or bridge
Regards.

Hi, to be of real value the track ought to integrate with the overall network of highways. As it is it can't be routed on so is minor value to the whole scheme of things.
Regards.

Removed wood within wood

Do you need help with mapping areas or perhaps your testing? If testing please don't upload the tests.
Regards