Hi Colin,
Thanks for responding so promptly and cooperatively. I now understand that the way that I am concerned about should not have been included in the changeset in NL, but that you still consider it to be a valid object.
It seems that I did not adequately explain my concern, so I will try again:
My concern was that osm.org/way/356789767 was tagged as: “landuse=forest” (despite being a linear way and not an enclosed area) and “name=Wellsfoot Island” (despite it being in Milton Keynes and a G**gle search suggesting that Wellsfoot Island is on Dartmoor.
I see that you have since edited it again to revert it to being a section of admin boundary. Thank you for your help.
Cheers,
Peter

osm.org/way/356789767, which was part of this changeset appears to be misplaced in Milton Keynes, UK. It seems to be part of a change in the Netherlands. I propose to delete it, unless I hear that you have reason to keep it there.

No problem. Have a good day.

A. 1. I have no idea how many PROWs you might have added, but I am (genuinely) grateful that you have.
2. I thought that I was being polite and I am sorry that you did not perceive it that way.
B. You can certainly ask, but...
Have a nice day!

Hi, I was alertted by the iD editor to the fact that you left the footpath (osm.org/way/1133593625) crossing Noon Layer Drive and another footpath, without joining them. Also you did not join it to the nearby Cycle and Foot Path at its Western end. After a survey to confirm, I have added the necessary connections. Could I politely ask that you try in future to join ways that you create to all the relevant other ways? Then, routing software will not refuse to use the way in question. Regards, Peter

Typo in CS Comment: "Aldi and..."

Sorry; the comments should say "... 2 cycle paths, one on the bridge..."

I am sorry, but that is NOT The Plough (Way 359781033). I have created The Plough in the correct location, after survey (Way: The Plough (1024260513)

Thanks for sorting this out.

Many thanks. I will delete it.

In this changeset, you have left 2 ways (507835856 and 507835860) as line features tagged with “natural=wood”, which is normally reserved for area features. Can you resolve this, please?

I notice (as part of a MapRoulette Challenge) that in this edit you have left Way 587036831 as a line, but tagged as "leisure=nature reserve", which is normally an area. I am reluctant to delete it from my armchair; can you resolve, please?

After visiting the area today (2021-12-16), I have re-modelled the junction and removed the "access=no" tagging. The road is open; it is no longer a roundabout, but a T junction (just like before, but now with traffic lights!)

In response to your "fix_me", I have visited the post box, updated its location (only by a few metres) and added Ref and Collection Times.

Thank you for your comments. I see that you have edited the mapillary tag again, but unfortunately you have made another mistake, by putting the whole mapillary URL in the field. You must only put the ID number in there. (It follows "&pKey=" in the URL). I have corrected this one for you.

I have corrected the Mapillary ID. It should contain only the Key value, not the whole URL

Thanks. I think I have got it right now. I had to change the wikidata tag first, then iD stopped objecting. However, changing the name to the full version "Tesco Milton Keynes Old Farm Park Express" caused it to suggest changing back to "Tesco" again (without the "Express"). BTW all this started from a certain "Survey Me!" tool flagging a possible mis-match!

I have failed to re-tag it as "Tesco Express" because the iD editor objects to this and suggests changing it back to "Tesco". I left it as is, pending further research into brands / brand tagging / wikidata etc.

I visited here today and it is a "Tesco Express", not a full supermarket. I hope that @Robert Whittaker will not object to my re-tagging it as such.

Thanks. Woughton Park does exist, but it is just South of Woughton on the Green.