Hi, welcome to OSM.
A bit confused but it always concerns me when a first edit is to delete another mappers work. Why have you deleted this residential area, it certainly looks correct to me.
Also please make your changeset comments meaningful and describe what you are trying to achieve, lk says absolutely nothing helpful.
Cheers Phil

Maybe do more than the absolute minimum and extend the residential area?

Cheers Phil

Again this is a bridleway, it does not have public motor vehicle access. Setting to private.

Hi, please look at the existing data and respect it. If you don't understand the terms then look them up, either on the OSM wiki or using your favourite search engine. Take some time to understand the laws and customs of where you are mapping.
Both of these ways are tagged as Restricted Byways, which means there is no public vehicle access. Tagging these as motor_vehicle=yes is therefore very wrong.

I am reverting this edit.

Cheers Phil

Can you really see bollards from aerial imagery here?

Only part of this is paved, I have set the remaining unsurfaced section to track

Reverted

Set to private

Mae Cegidfa yn Lloegr?

However the issue here is that the map was correct before you armchaired it.
Using available sources, such as OS Opendata Streetview the public highway ends where it was previously mapped.
Aerial imagery suggests that there is a private way there, but there is certainly not a public highway. Missing public links such as this would have been mapped years ago if they existed by an on the ground mapper.
Cheers Phil

If there are black lines it is likely to be a public highway.
The big thing to remember is that these area were not mapped exclusively using imagery, they were largely mapped by local mappers who know the area. Look at the history of the surrounding ways when mapping and trust the judgement of the locals.
It is highly unlikely in an area that is not new-build that residential roads are un-mapped.
In the case of this way, I have passed it many times. If I had seen a missing residential road I would have mapped it. What I saw is a driveway which we tend not to map.
Cheers Phil

Hi, please slow down and think beyond your own usecase.
You have drawn a service road through the middle of an existing building. I am aware the building does not exist, but if the existing data is wrong then take some time and care to correct it. Please take some pride in your mapping.
Cheers Phil

Hi Craig
This edit has broken the PROW connectivity for way/386791357
I assume it should have been connected to St Annes Way?
Cheers Phil

Hi Dave, I think this should be Holland Park?

Cheers Phil

Hi
Again this is a shared driveway.

Consider why it is not mapped in a well mapped area and valid sources such as OS Opendata show this without solid black lines,

Cheers Phil

Although spending a bit of time looking through the history, changeset comments can be quite helpful.
It is also important to consider why something is not mapped in a well mapped residential area.
Cheers Phil

There are several thing here that gives clues.
A trend in modern housing estates is private shared driveways/parking areas. Generally this is what I am seeing based on experience of seeing these on the ground.
The big indicators I can see on imagery is that the kerbs are crossed, indicating that this is not a public adopted highway.
This is new build, it has not existed long enough for infill, if this was intended to be public highway then turning areas at the end of Rowan Road and Drover's Close would not have been provided. Close in a name indicated that it is not a through road.
As for a driveway being a way to access another roadway, then this isn't. It should only be used if you have business at those properties, in that case there is a choice of entry/exit. If you need to travel from Rowan Road to Drover's Close then you should do so via Goldworkings Crescent.
The other thing to take into account is OSM history, this area was mapped by local mappers by survey and we tend to ignore private driveways as they have little interest to the majority of map users. Had this been a residential road I am pretty sure they would have mapped it, again its newbuild so would have been built at the same time as Drover's Close and Rowan Road.
For now at least, I would err on the side of caution and map this as private. By all means add a note to prompt a local mapper to go and have a look what it really is. In fact the Optimus Way link is due another survey so will have a look in the next few weeks if someone hasn't beaten me to it.
BTW I was the first mapper to map this estate, Birch Lane from Kirby Road.
Hope this helps Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM. Thank you for your edit, however should the name not be F.H Brundle?
Cheers Phil

This tunnel is at ground level, I have been there and I am the mapper who surveyed and mapped it.
It is a connection of the old road, probably the actual course of the roman Watling Street. The reality is that the road and the cycleway are on an embankment.
Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM. This edit seems to have gone a bit wrong. You have added your business on a verge, there are no building here. I am going to revert this, but as long as it is verifiable then please add it again in the correct location.
Cheers Phil

We do not map to make things uniform. We map what we see on the ground.
The wiki should not be taken literally although in this case "On the other hand, the link ends at the latest where it joins a different road" does apply.
There is also mapillary to give a clear view, the green portion tells the Trunk, or link to trunk.See https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&lat=51.64044820708375&lng=-1.843661125751055&z=17&pKey=E9y_-FPy5lr8jJi60tMtPA
These ways have the
ref A419, again indicating not secondary.
Please revert this change.
Cheers Phil