Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edit. One thing I've noticed - you've put the address as the name. The name field should be used as per name=*#Additional_data . In this case isn't the name of the restaurant "Raewyn's Restaurant"?

This changeset has added a building over the top of the existing building.

I don't think you can change changeset descriptions, you can just add something here as a comment to note what it should be.

So it it - they must have been quick because it's been there since the sign went up. I shall correct the name in OSM since I based it off the sign

I don't know about this road specifically but road names do use macrons, see https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-36.87596734587157&lng=174.6987959799185&z=17&pKey=zIDBVkw-vQuqKO4gUvV0bg&focus=photo&x=0.36845352126638037&y=0.46399225946483064&zoom=0.5372492836676218 for example

Hi welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits. Please don't use the name key for descriptions such as "jump into the water" and "beach and swimming". See name=* for what it is to be used for.

Rather than tagging this as a tourist attraction it should be shop=e-cigarette as per shop=e-cigarette. Also please don't use the name field for descriptions ("vape shop"). Thanks, Rob.

For one way roads you can simply tag the way as oneway=yes rather than using a relation and the routers will honour that. In this case though from the aerial imagery it doesn't appear Nolan Road is one way anyway - certainly not in the LINZ Aerial imagery you cite as source

Shouldn't this rather be tagged natural=wood given I don't think it's "Wooded area maintained by human to obtain forest products" (landuse=forest)

Hi, this changeset has added footpaths zig zagging through houses (way/655284522) and other changes not supported by the imagery used. In addition you have used a changeset comment that in no way describes the changes you have made. Can you please revert the mistaken changes and in future use proper changeset comments as per osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Conventions used seem to vary wildly. If you add access=no then vehicle=no is implicit. That's the way I've tagged the closed Waitakere paths and it seems to render correctly and not allow routing, see way/44347941 for an example

It looks like you've changed the tagging on these to access=permissive and vehicle=no. To mark they are closed I think you should tag them access=no and remove the foot= and vehicle= tags.

There is already a node with the address tags for number 22, you could just merge that with the building outline rather than adding a second number 22.

This changeset looks to be adding fantasy details, please revert to only include genuine features that are verifiable on the ground

From aerial imagery this appears to be a pool not a pond

This area you have tagged is a school not a water feature, please revert your change and use descriptive changeset comments

I cleaned up a multipolygon error identified by JOSM and merged the two outer ways, think it's all good now.

Awesome, thanks

Thanks for cleaning that up, can note note/1514030 now be resolved?

Hi welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits. I see you've tagged Z Pier Westhaven as a campsite - shouldn't this be caravan site? (ie. motor-home parking). Also can you please put descriptions in your changesets. Thanks.