Is osm.org/way/315901396 really a river? As mapped it seems to flow uphill into the village, around, and then down again, which is surely wrong.

Landuse needs surveying properly. My recollection is there there are no meadows around Leadenham - it's just regular agricultural land (mostly arable, some grazing).

The Bing imagery here is currently offset to the south by 5m or so, and unfortunately this does not seem to be have been taken into account by recent "non-surveying" mappers.

Things need shuffling north to match reality (the actual amount varies by location).

Check for any signage that might justify the name of osm.org/way/40961536 as current. I suspect there won't be any - if there isn't any evidence for the name it should be removed.

Is this path really called this? It looks more like a description than a ame.

The imagery suggests that osm.org/way/316741487 should be abandoned rather than disused - is it possible to check properly from the footpath to the south, or does the relative level of the path and rail line make this impossible?

There are duplicate "Potterhanworth Heath" here (with slight spelling differences) - osm.org/node/2663469087 and osm.org/node/2653706497 . I'm guessing in reality there is no such verifiable place, and someone has just copied some text from an OS OpenData_StreetView map.

The access rights on osm.org/way/322875404/history need checking. The footpath to the south is a public footpath, as is the one to the north, but this section is allegedly only permissive. My recollection of this area is that the section where this note is is PF, but although the PF is signed north everyone takes the shortcut (actually the signed PF may not be accessible - or I may be thinking of the access at osm.org/#map=18/53.14654/-0.52668&layers=QN). Anyway - needs a survey.

As drawn, the landuse here is misplaced. The fence to the west of the footpath osm.org/way/273674141 is the boundary between the farmyard with the buildings in it (to the east) and the farmland (not meadow as I recall) to the west. Needs redrawing properly.

Something odd seems to have happened to osm.org/way/4902282/history - it's been deleted. It overlapped osm.org/way/4902133 (which has very odd tags, and probably needs a proper survey to see what it is), but the tags that were on osm.org/way/4902282/history aren't duplicated.