Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap
Just checking whether you've surveyed this yourself (it looks like it as it seems you used a gpx file) or whether it was copied from OS Maps, just because your comment isn't quite clear about that.
Also on the southern one of the paths you've added, there's a section where you've put it along the field boundary, which makes it seem like it's going through a hedge! I assume it actually goes one side or the other, so it would be great if you were able to fix that. Or let me know and I should be able to fix it.

Looks good, I've updated the type to a bar (amenity=bar)

Hi, same comment as your other one, the tag is on the point, not the building here. I've changed this too (if something really has no name then you can tag noname=yes).
Again, if there is something new here then please tag that instead.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Thanks for adding this info, up to date information on shops is always good to have.
In this case, Monsoon had been tagged on a node (point), rather than on the building outline.
I've removed the name you've added to the building and instead removed the name from the Monsoon point, and changed the shop type to "vacant". If there is a new shop there now then please add that instead.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98985017

Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Thanks for adding this. It's best to keep things separate though. Since this postbox isn't in the middle of the road (I assume), can you make a new node, not connected to the road, and tag the postbox on there?

Thanks for pointing that out, not sure how it could have happened as I thought I always split the ways when editing.
I believe I've fixed it all in changeset #98924390

This, or possibly other edits of yours here recently seem to have affected this: osm.org/relation/2255290
As I don't know the area very well, can you fix it?

What do you mean by all the shelters you've added? Should the buildings they are in be tagged as houses?

I hadn't thought I'd added +44 to any 08 numbers, can you show me where I did?

Possibly not, I hadn't realised that at the time though

Hi, thanks for your edits. I've just noticed that you're not using the standard format for opening_hours. I'm fixing some now, but try to use the proper format going forwards

source is actually Bing, forgot to change the tag from a previous edit

source is actually Bing, forgot to change the tag from a previous edit

Looks good to me (from a distance).
My only query is on the three paths in Walton Park that you edited, changing them from track to footway, they all have the note "No longer in use", which was added in 2015 when the footway tag was removed. If they are in fact in use, it seems to me that this tag should be removed.

I hadn't realised that about dialling numbers

I can see why you say that, but I felt that this was acceptable. Firstly, it's only changing the tags, not keys.
Secondly, I feel that it is important to have phone numbers callable internationally, particularly with the increasing use of OSM data in smartphone apps. When travelling, I expect to be able to tap on a phone number and for it to work, without me having to enter the country code at that time. This is a straightforward change to make, simply replacing the leading zero with "+44 ", and if there was any uncertainty over a phone number then I didn't change anything but left a note.
Also, I didn't realise there was a problem with mass edits necessarily. I am aware of the automated edits code of conduct, but felt that this didn't come under that banner as the changes are made manually and individually.

I was unsure whether to leave them or not. The sign for the junction as you go west on the A690 towards it still shows it as a roundabout (it seems to be the same sign that was there before the junction update), and it does behave somewhat like a roundabout with traffic lights

Oops, yes it should have been, good spot.
I've now corrected it (osm.org/changeset/41018159)

I replied to the note, but your comment there was anonymous, so I'm copying my comment here:
Thanks, although we need to be careful about using data from Google Streetview, due to copyright concerns. See the discussion here, for example:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/710/can-i-use-google-streetview-to-help-create-maps

I looked at satellite imagery for each change that I made, making sure that it was actually grass there. There were a couple of odd tags I'd found where I couldn't be sure what it was meant to be, so I left it as it was.
Maybe I should have made that clear in my changeset comment, sorry.