I remove lots of duplicated/triplicated landuse=residential tags, the whole Sittingbourne area is tagged thus. No need for unnecessary bloat of the database by these tags. The landuse=residential multipolygons should be removed as well.

I don't usually comment them because there are so many.

I usually go through the whole UK every day or two checking all geometry and routing errors. I can usually correct them all, though a few can be very complex.

You had actually made two nodes on the one corner, probably double clicking. In JOSM I highlighted the offending corner and merged the nodes by clicking shortcut "M".

Hi that one was picked up by OSM Inspector, duplicated node in way, here :- http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-4.94704&lat=50.56762&zoom=18&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way

This view will be re-rendered within 24 hours. Corrected errors will disappear then.
Regards Bernard.

I amended some of the tunnel tags to OSM practice.

With Way: 4999101 you are actually triplicating the landuse=residential tag. You have the building tagged landuse=residential, you have several multiploygons of a few buildings tagged landuse=residential and you now have the whole Sittingbourne area tagged as landuse=residential. Bit of a mess to say the least.

Also the semi detached houses should be joined together at the party walls

If you just tag the building as building=residential it obviates the landuse=residential tag. Especially as the landuse=residential is duplication as it's within a larger area tagged landuse=residential (here as a multipolygon landuse area).

Hi, I amended Way: 343671193 this is shown as a public footpath on the OS and Council maps. As I've tagged it it is inferred there is no other public access, therefore other access is inferred as not public.

Sorry I now see you didn't add the public footpath designation. The above logic still applies though.

Hi, Way: 592100875 does not appear on the County Council Definitive Map. Do you have means to show it's a public footpath, if not could you please amend your tagging.

Please don't mark ways as private when the is public access on them.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
The route you altered is the definitive and legal line of the footpath. Only this line should use designation=public_footpath
foot=designated.

The line drawn at south around field edges ought be mapped as well, but as an ordinary or permissive path. It is not a Public Roght of Way.

Regards Bernard.

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
The info you added is all correct, I just added addr:country=GB.
You might like to consider adding the floor level ( see level=* )
Also I would find it helpful if visiting you to know where to enter the building. So maybe map the building entrance leading to your offices and place your POI near this entrance.

If you need help please just ask. Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Most of the service roads you added look like footpaths, further you've not joined several of them to form a network.
A path is no good if you can;t get to it via another highway, its just an isolated island.

Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I would like to refer you to this webpage :- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1177/pdfs/uksiem_20061177_en.pdf

You will see it defines a riding a bicycle and riding a horse as designated right on a restricted byway.

Could you therefore remove your amendment to this highway. If you need help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

I amended to a service road

The Grand Lodge of England states Freemasonry not to be a religion.

The data on a lot of your tags would be inferred by their absence so there's no need for most of the tags. (being a footpath infers no vehicles).