just a tip, if you're not sure on the building type you can just add it as a generic building (building=yes), then someone later doing a ground survey can improve the building type. At least some of these are probably building=apartments since they house multiple units see building=*#Accommodation

I see you added access=no + motor_vehicle=yes to https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/410251553 unless the road is closed I think that top level access tag is best left unset. motor_vehicle=yes is not harmful to tag, but is usually assumed by default so most of the time not really necessary. Which specific from/to points were you noticing the routing issue?

Hi I noticed you deleted https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/80951861 and replaced it with a new way, if you could try to retain existing objects to keep the history that's best. For now I'll restore back the original way and add your tags so the history can be maintained.

By the way, crossing=marked is a duplicate of crossing=uncontrolled crossing=* "Duplicate of crossing=uncontrolled, i.e. a crossing with road markings, but no traffic lights." so there's no reason to need to change from uncontrolled to marked.

way/507279778/history which business do you need to be a customer of to use this car park? If it open to the public to use then it should be access=yes, access=customers means only people here for the shop/cafe/pub/etc can use the car park.

It has a bollard mapped, which would block vehicles, so I can't see anything wrong unless the bollard has since been removed.

way/803661799/history bridge=culvert doesn't make sense, did you mean tunnel=culvert on the waterway?

way/22978301/history I wouldn't call that a forest track, it looks more like a service road at least for the start of the road https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/83XPAu3nOn6Ujq6HjTD5Bg. What do you think?

node/7517582145/history are you sure that's a ford, looks more like a bridge from what I can see https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/58_gREtq54I61EVh0g1cow

way/743296615/history was there anything to indicate this is only for use by customers? I've seen people bring their own craft into the water here while the shop was open and no one seemed to mind. I can't find any signage to suggest only customers of the rental shop can use it.

Hi, I can still see some kind of service road/driveway connecting these two streets on the aerial imagery, has that changed recently?

Hi, the centre node tagged as highway=turning_circle already describes this as a turning circle, so no need to trace out a separate way.

Not sure if you've seen osm.wiki/Climbing but worth a read if you're interested in doing more detailed mapping of climbing sites.

Hi welcome to OSM.

In general private driveways are fine to be mapped in OSM, so I've re-instated the driveway. I did add access=private to mark it as private.

Sorry I don't follow, but if something is wrong, please help fix it directly.

There is no need for a separate way here, the existing ways match the road centerlines already.

It's okay, we all started out at some point.

Great thanks for confirming and updating this based on your local knowledge.

Hi there, I know it was already mentioned on one of your other changesets, but since there is no physical separation the cycleway is tagged on the road so I've removed the separate way. Assuming of course it hasn't changed on the ground since https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/IRDwkKBLjWhigv8U1ucSTQ was taken.

Hi there, has this changed since this Mapillary image https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/P0ZiPLOeHZkeURNwrQubkg ? In this I can't see any counter-flow cycleway apart from the footpath.