Are these path's physically seperated from the highway? Usual convention is to use the 'sidewalk' tag on the highway to define location etc of the path. Even if the path is seperated, the path ifself typically does not have it's own name so the name tag should be removed.

You have mapped multiple 'basic' building's as relations (example 18419955). Is there a reason they have been mapped as relations?

Is there a reason you have added '(site of)' to these industrial areas? The name has been added to industrial areas for the business name. so '(site of') is redundant.

Is node/12269266801 (and couple of others nearby) a electrcial substation? Sat image appears to actaully be a Telecommunications cabinet (BT/Virgin Media etc)?

Are these path's signed as being named Great Lines? I do not remember these being specifically named especially as they are intercross each other etc.

Hi Demisee,
Your use of the 'building=roof' is incorrect, I would recommend reading the wiki article here: building=roof. Using the 'roof:*' tags would be more appropriate here i think and would be placed on the main building part.

addr:province or addr:state. Either way addr:county is undocumented and not the 'norm'

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

The 3 buildings have the correct name tags so not sure why you have then added building names to amenity areas? Please revert your change.

Hi James, Great to see another local mapper.
Could you please use descriptive changeset comments? This helps other contributors to understand your changes more easily i.e. What you have modified/created. See also: osm.wiki/Changeset
Thank you

Thanks for that sdoerr, distractions while mapping and i selected the wrong type of path. Corrected now.

Thanks i had added trying to get the Islet to display correctly and forgot to remove it.