Hi, you requested a review of this, it all looks good to me

Hi, you requested a review of this edit.
The road that you changed has been mapped that it was a residential road under construction (highway=construction, construction=residential), and you've made it a service road.
From aerial imagery it looks like residential road might be most appropriate, but say you've surveyed it, so happy to go with your judgement there.

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Have you checked this in person, or are you just basing the fact that these are bridleways on OS maps? Remember you can't copy other map data into OSM.
In terms of how things are rendered, that depends on which map display you use.
If you want to keep the track type (or service road, or whatever) then there are designation tags you can use, see here for details: osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_bridleways

The detail to the car park looks good.
Something went odd there with the path though, it looks like you moved the node with the gate on, which then changed the whole retail area outline.
Best to either draw a new path and then merge it, or continue the line from the gate node.
Also, not sure why you deleted the parking aisle road, as that was what I had meant you should connect the path to.
I've fixed these things for you here.

In terms of names not showing up, that depends on where you're viewing the map data. There are a huge variety of renderings and apps that use OSM data. I assume you're talking here about the default rendering on the OSM website though. It can take a day or two to refresh, and also a decision is made about what's more important to show when things would overlap. So here it seems to be showing the name of the residential area rather than the house name.
Don't be tempted to change tags or locations of things just to make it "look nice" here though: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

I don't represent OSM in any way, just another mapper. I was just reviewing some changesets.
I wasn't meaning that you should specify every single change you've made, but just a description of what you've done in that changeset (in particular all of your changesets had the same description, so it's helpful to understand the difference between all of them).
See here for more detail osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#How_should_I_write_Changeset_Comments.3F
Not sure why you feel the need to delete accounts, but whatever.
Also, just to say that your more recent changeset descriptions are much better, so thanks for adding more detail there.

Thanks for fixing this. Just a note, on the wiki it says that the ways across the bridge should be tagged with bridge and the same layer as the bridge, and should also connect to the edge of the bridge outline. I've fixed that for you here.
Also, just to confirm that it isn't possible to get from the path to the road at all here? If it is possible then there needs to be a connection of some sort to enable routing.

Hi, you requested a review of this, and it's me again.
Looks goo (partly because it's exactly what I suggested).
Couple of comments, first there is a type for car park (select the car park then search for feature type), then remove its name or if it does have a signed name then set it to that instead, and it probably doesn't make sense for the car park to have an address either.
Also, I may have just missed this last time (and it wasn't actually you that added it), but the footpath to the north west of the farm shop currently doesn't connect through. For the sake of apps and such like that do directions it's important for paths to connect to other paths or roads. From the aerial imagery it looks like it goes round the east side of the building.

Hi, you requested a review of this.
Looks good to me, good to make sure that new developments are added quickly, and looks like you've added lots of suitable tags to the roads.
I assume from your comment that the development isn't quite finished, so the surrounding construction area is probably still suitable.

One thing, this little bit of road:
way/907032414
doesn't have a name, if it's part of either Pheasant Avenue or Goldcrest Drive then it could be merged with the appropriate one.

Hi, you requested a review of this. Thanks for adding this building, always good to make sure things like that are up to date.
First, it's best to square the corners (Q) (or use the buildings plugin tool in JOSM) to make drawing squared buildings easier.
Also, because there are 'holes' in the outline of the building, it needs to be a multipolygon. Go to Tools > Create multipolygon.
Also, there was a leftover node just tagged with the name of the building.
I've done these things for you here.

Hi, you requested a review of this, happy to say that it all looks good to me. Happy mapping!

Hi, you requested a review of this.
Thanks for adding this path, that bit all looks good.
For the bridge I would say it depends on how it's laid out.
If the path is essentially a pavement at the side of the road on the bridge, then best to connect the path to the road either side of the bridge (not at the point the bridge starts though) and then use the sidewalk tag on the bridge: sidewalk=*
And probably also tags like foot=designated and designation=public_footpath (which could be added for the whole path if it's a signed public footpath).

If there's no connection between the path and the road then drawing a separate bridge round both would be best, see here for details: man_made=bridge

Thanks for doing this, looks good

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Thanks for adding this, it's always good to have up to date details of new developments.
Just a couple of things to note, first you should use "addr:housenumber" for the number (the address field with "123" in the background). You initially used name, then "addr:housename".
Also, best to add the street too.
In addition, it's good to square the corners of buildings (right click and select square).
I've been in and fixed those things for you here.

If the construction is now fully complete then you could change the construction area to a residential area.

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Mostly looks good, thanks for adding these details.
Just wondering why you removed the name from way/707296966 ?
You seem to have only just added it.

Also, when adding buildings it's best to give them square corners (right click and select square).

Hi, you've requested a review of this change.
Couple of comments, when you add paths and roads, they need to connect to each other so that they can be routed along with directions. I've connected those paths for you here.
Also, on the path: way/29734862
you've added a non-standard value for the surface. It's best to stick to the standard values so they can be understood by everything that uses the data, see here for commonly used values: surface=*

Hi, you requested a review of this, it looks good to me.

Hi, you requested a review of this. It looks good to me, thanks for updating this.
My only comment would be that you've left the tag of atm. If this isn't a bank then I assume there's no cash machine there now, so that could be removed.

Great, it would probably be good to update the outline of the construction area then, and replace suitable parts with residential areas.
Then adding addresses to all of the houses would be great (but require a bit of effort I know).

Hi, you requested a review of this edit.
Thanks for adding this detail, always good to have more things on the map.
Couple of things to note, first What3words addresses can't be put into OSM, see here for details:
osm.wiki/What3words
Therefore I've removed those from the three buildings.
Also I can see what you're trying to achieve with the outline round the cottages, but the best thing would be to mark it as a residential area.
In addition, you could add the outlines of the buildings, and add the address details to them, instead of just being points. (Use "addr:housename", instead of name there).
If you want to add more detail, then a retail area round the cafe area would be good, and the car park too.

Actually, just this building:
way/906809910
You've given it a rather jagged corner, which doesn't match what I'm seeing in the aerial imagery