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

Hi, you requested a review of this and it mostly looks good to me.
Just a question about the item you've named "Bloop", way/128135013/
You removed the shop tag from it.
What sort of thing is it now?

Just happened to spot them and couldn't leave something that broken!

And here and in other changesets you've added "footway"="footway=no" to a lot of ways. I'm not sure what you were aiming for with these, and they had a mixture of foot access tags set so I've simply removed the tag on all of the ways.
You can review my change here:
changeset/100584689

Hi, in this and other changesets you broke lots of junctions. You set the highway tag to "foot=no".
i.e. "highway" = "foot=no"
instead of e.g.
"highway" = "primary"

I've been round and fixed all of these that I could find using overpass turbo, but do feel free to review my change:
Mostly in: changeset/100584263
Also a couple of individual junctions before I realised how many there were:
changeset/100582368
changeset/100582444

See my other comment about surface

The comment about unpaved was meant to go on your other changeset, but the squaring corners definitely applies here.

Hi, you requested a review of this and it looks good to me.
It's surprising that it's unpaved, but you seem to have local knowledge of that. Maybe there's a more specific tag that could be used? See here for details: surface=*

You seem to have done lots more mapping nearby too, which is great. Just a comment, make sure you always square the corners of the buildings (right click, square, or 'q') as it makes everything much neater. I've been through and done that for you on most of the houses in the immediate area here.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
You requested a review of this.

Thanks for adding all of this detail, all helpful stuff to have, and it looks like you've tagged things correctly.

Couple of comments:

For apps and things to route along paths it's important that they join up with other paths, e.g. at the end of this path way/908955191

The warnings you had about paths highways crossing waterways should be fixed, e.g. here: way/908955145/ it looks like the path is a bridge for part of it, so you should split the path up and tag the middle bit as a bridge.

There were a few paths there already, which may need to be adjusted, but again it's important to incorporate them, and not duplicate features next to them, e.g. at this bridge way/250691098/

Hi, you requested a review of this and it looks good. It would be good to confirm if the part of the old runway still in the airport area is now a taxiway.

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

Hi, you requested a review of this and it looks good to me, you seem to have added lots of appropriate detail.

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

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
The tags you've used are good, but that width looks very specific, is it really precisely that (to the mm) all the way along? Otherwise just make it more approximate, e.g. 1.4 or 1.5

You requested a review of this too and it all looks good to me.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap, you requested a review of this change. It looks good to me.
As that's the correct name, you should change the street address on the other houses that are mapped here too.
Happy mapping

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Mostly looks good to me, it's good to have things like this mapped.
Couple of things, first where the crossings are, you've put the traffic lights in just as traffic lights, but they should also be tagged as crossings: highway=traffic%20signals#Traffic_signals_for_pedestrians

Also, your path just ends
way/908670956/
It looks like it should connect with the cycleway that's there already.

Hi, you requested a review of this. The fence you've added crosses runways at the moment. If they are no longer in use then they need to be changed to something like disused:aeroway=runway.
And is it a construction area to the north west of the fence now? In which case the outline of the airport needs updating (you could split the area if that's the case).

Again with the phone number, but again lots of detail and everything else looks good.

Same comment about the phone number, but other than that all looks good, lots of detail.