I'll pay attention to all of your points, really useful. I see a fair few things like woodlands, field boundaries and small watery bits that don't look right, but try and avoid fiddling with them too much. I tend to draw the shapes of buildings where I know there should be some but will pay a bit more attention to boundaries where they exist. There's nothing by my house and its been around nearly 20 years now. So I tend to defer to what I know on the ground

Here's one - hopefully it shows for you. In gosforth (osm.org/edit#map=19/54.419147/-3.439557)

The semi detached property (with the L shape on lhs). The land parcels look consistent but the buildings are different on OS open data, aerial, as is the road and the public right of way.

I suppose I'm asking how accurate is it meant to be and what source is preferred as a base especially when cadastral data isn't present. I don't want to knacker up the map, but there are loads of opportunities for a casual editor to do so

Sort of makes sense to me, although If I overlay the satellite imagery over the cadastral layer there are obvious mis alignments between building size/shape between the two. There are a load of areas where the cadastral shows a building as a square or a rectangle whilst the reality is different.

I have tried to put buildings in as per their actual shape rather than that of a drawing, that could be out of date. Is this not the right thing to do?

I get the offset bit, I'll make sure they align and will go back through edits made recently to check for land parcels but the buildings bit is a bit confusing, there are instances where building are shown as square for example, when the reality is that they are rectangular and they cross boundaries. I probably need a bit of guidance here

It changes quite often between a restaurant and b&b. It never actually looks open. Cycle past it every day and only ever seen the owner, no guests.