Well an office is not works=* so I've changed it to landuse=commercial :)

Hi, did you mean to add man_made=works around an office? way/919353697
You also deleted this node, but didn't retain any of the name/product information: node/6887221688/history#map=18/55.91440/-4.19851
And is this actually landfill? way/919353695

There's the talk-gb mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb (there's a talk-scotland one as well but it's not exactly active).
Also the OSM forum and help sites listed here: osm.org/help

Think this track and path are duplicates? way/917623432
way/635420680
Also, if you are using Bing imagery please align it with the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels overlay or use offset 1.5,-2.6 in this area. Otherwise you're going to be mapping out of alignment with the current OSM data.

It's tagged as a tunnel already way/791082706 but if it's not big enough for a vehicle then highway=path would be better

Sorry but I've had to revert the deletion of this track. As you can see from https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6757517 there is a tunnel here.

In future if you aren't sure whether something exists it might be worth leaving a comment on the original changeset, or using the "add a note to the map" to highlight the issue to other mappers.

Hi, if this is the incorrect name then do you know what the correct one is?

Thanks for the reply - just remember that Bing imagery is there as well! :)

The convention is basically - connectivity is slightly more important than absolute accurary. Otherwise if roads/paths are not connected then routing apps cannot direct people where to go.

Since most places have no pavement mapped separately, paths just connect directly to the road. But feel free to adjust where the paths join - just make sure they are connected :)

If you had checked something other than Esri imagery when adding a road which crosses a railway then you would've noticed the road does not exist...

Unfortunately I've had to revert these changes, as well as changeset/99930244 - you disconnected the paths from the roundabout and misaligned the paths.

The Bing imagery seems to be out of alignment so before editing please use the "imagery offset" tool in the background options to align the Bing imagery to the OSM data. Thanks :)

Is there definitely not even a (foot)path connection between these two roads?

Hi, welcome to OSM. Thanks for editing the map however I've had to revert your changes as the buildings are misaligned.
If you decide to edit the map please use the "imagery offset" tool in the background options to align the Bing imagery to the current OSM data.

Not really sure why you added bicycle=no here (and in other places as well). If it's gated then add a gate and access details for more than just bikes!

I have reverted this changeset - you've added a duplicate petrol station and unnecessarily connected the parking area to the road.

Perhaps natural=ridge or natural=arete might be worth using?

Found this comment on a recent changeset: changeset/99624114

Hi, thanks for the edit however you didn't actually change anything - so I've added the path: way/909414852

Hi, what is your evidence / source for this change?

Hi, what are you testing?