If there's an actual obstruction, it would be better to map that rather than use turn-restrictions

I know. The problem was the deletions it included... I need to re-do it and be more careful with resolving the overlaps of additions/existing.

Yup, you're right; I failed to look at the tags. Sorry!
I'll add LHS sidewalks for both carriageways there, based in today's Bing. A check on the lane count of the eastbound one might be good; tag is 2 but it looks rather narrow for that...

Which road? The only one I spot right now is Hindes Rd right next to the junction (and, wow, the imagery I was working from can't be what I'm seeing now - it's all in shadow).
I can't recall playing with sidewalks at all.

These "holiday cottages" look bogus: the outlines are identical and do not match Bing or Maxar imagery, though there is a building in each case.
Also you deleted the landuse areas; why?

Aerial image, probably Bing; on the grounds that it appeared to be serving the multiple houses.
However, looking at the ESRI Clarity, perhaps it does not and the extra bit should be removed again

For solar panels please include location (usually "roof"), generator:solar:modules (panel count) and direction. There's a UK-wide project to gather solar PV info; see eg. http://osm.gregorywilliams.me.uk/solar/

Seems fine from the limited amount visible on aerial imagery.
If the unit doesn't actually have a name obvious to outsiders (only the address) then I'd remove the "name" tag.

A point with no tags isn't very useful

When working to this level of precision you need to carefully align the background imagery. In iD, 'b" for backgrounds, find the 'OSMUK Cadastral Parcels' menu entry, and enable it. These are Land-Registry boundaries, and we treat them a fully accurate. Scroll dow to the bottom of the menu and open the 'Imagery Offset' section. Find a bit of image close by showing fences between gardens, then drag in the small rectangle to align the fences with the blue land-parcel boundaries.

This object labelled "cafe" seems to cover the entire golf course, which seems unlikely

The solar panel removed, NE corner of Bramley Close, looks fairly clearly there on Bing imagery.

Not visible on aerial imagery, so I assume this is local knowlege. Possibly worth adding a "source" tag to say that.
Not rectangular... if it should be, iD has a nice fixup on the "q" key (mnemonic: "square").
To check imagery alignment in iD, hit 'b'; enable "OSMUK Cadastral Parcels"; open the Imagery Offset at the bottom, find some blue lines matching identifiable image features, and drag to shift the background image.
And, welcome!

Shouldn't house number(s) be a separate tag? Also, I'd be tempted to enhance "house" to "semidetached_house"

There are several sections of road that are not actually split into separated one-way roads that are mapped as such, eg.
osm.org/way/582356693

Building at the Southwest end of Waterbeach road looks bogus according to Bing imagery; more like a service road and gate

Would that name "1 Oakwood" be better as an address?

I had a go at aligning it better;
it's still not perfect

Could you add tags with the incline and surface values?

That looks more like the plot of land than the building, from the aerial view