Hi, you requested a review of this change.
Looks like you've got more edits than me, so I'm not sure how qualified I am to review this.
This change seems fine though, but just wondering why you removed the protect_class tag?

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
It looks good, thanks for adding this restaurant.
I've fixed the phone number as you shouldn't include the leading 0 when there's the +44 (which is correct to have)

Great, thanks for fixing this.
I think I wasn't clear enough, there's a specific space for specifying access (the "allowed access" section when you're editing, or the "access" tag), and this is what should be set to "private". I've fixed that for you here and also added some of the buildings round here.

Hi, it would be helpful if you could be more specific in your changeset description (all edits make changes), to help other people understand what changes you've made and why.

Hi, I can see you've done a few of these. Perhaps as well as changing the tag it would be good to add what it is, e.g. it seems to be grass here

Hi, you requested a review of this edit.
Thanks for adding this path, the tags look good on it. At the south east end you joined it to the wall, it would be best to connect it through to the road as well so that it can be routed along, where appropriate.
I've done that for you here.
Happy mapping!

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
It looks good to me, just a note, on osm.org/way/216963293 you added that it isn't one way, this tag isn't really needed as that can generally be assumed (to save adding it on every single road)

Hmm, not sure if we've talked or not, I do feel like I've seen a few of your other accounts during my editing though.
When I edit I don't feel like it's too tricky to remember what I've done in each changset (maybe do smaller changsets?). And I assume there is some distinction between your various changsets?

Ah ok, no worries

Hi, just wondering why you removed the foot=designated tag from this road?

Hi, on this changset you've added a source of "OS 1:25k" to osm.org/way/437076501
Is this a historical map, or a recent one? I'm sure you're aware that you can't copy other copyrighted maps into OSM.

Hi, it would be great if you could be more specific in your changeset descriptions. I can't tell everything you've done here, but maybe something like "Adding areas of scree and bare rock and..." would help other mappers to understand what you've done, and then the difference between all of your changsets.

Ah ok, great

Ha, nice one.
Often single things are broken into several parts on OSM, either because different parts have different properties (such as width, or number of lanes on a road) or just to break things into manageable parts.

Hi, you requested a review of this.
You'e only changed the name, and that seems fine. I don't have any local knowledge, but I'm presuming you do and that's why you've changed it. This stream is mapped in several parts, there are sections running north west from here still called "Fleak Water", so do change them too if that name is incorrect.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
You requested a review of these changes.
In this case, the roads you deleted should still be on the map as they do exist. It seems though that their access should be tagged as private.
Also, the name tag is only for the name as on signposts, not a description.
If you're not confident in reverting the changset or adding the service roads back in then let me know and I can do so (this also applies to some of your other recent edits.

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
This looks good to me. Is the construction still ongoing? Or can the construction area be changed to a residential area now?

Hi, you requested a review of this changset.
This looks good to me too, looks like you've added lots of appropriate details

Hi, you requested a review of this change.
It looks good to me, looks like someone missed removing the fixme tag a while ago.

Hi, you requested a review of this edit.
Looks good to me. If there's anything new there now, then it would be good to add that.
If in fact it's essentially an abandoned cafe then perhaps it could be tagged as disused:amenity=cafe.
Also, if there's nothing public there now then it would be best to remove the other tags related to the cafe business, specifically internet_access, outdoor_seating and fhrs_id.