I'm guessing iD was still in edit mode for that pitch, and I'd moved on and was flipping wireframe-mode.

Thanks for spotting; now fixed.

A buiding with name "137" ?

This seems unlikely. If this is the house number, please use addr:housenumber

Looks reasonable. I assume the marker is not actually in the middle of the road but on the verge; you could potentially shift it for greater accuracy.
Welcome to the mapping community!

Probably a better way of mapping this would be to split the road segment at the building edges and then tag the road as "tunnel, building passage". Then the building doesn't need a layer indication.

Sounds good!

Why remove driveways?
Surely, if they really are there on
the ground, they can be mapped
(though specific tagging as drivway
would be better than just "service",
and a "private" access restriction
could be appropriate).

Review comment: looks good in general. The changeset comment should probably be in English for a change here.

It's worth turning on the Cadastral Parcels layer, using it as assumed reality to align the imagary (look at residential gardens for this; admittedly Bing is pretty close in this area) - and then correcting details in the area you're working on. See eg. the NE corner of the scrubland with your paths.

A culvert for that extensive a length of the brook seems unlikely?

This section certainly is not only one lane

This section certainly is not only one lane

Also a drag-error on a building, extending it out of shape to cross the railway. Also, I'm reasonably sure that Flaunden lane is not a toll road, having used it.

Lacking response, I have reverted this changeset.

se/use

The "tunnel" and layer "-1" were already implied by the se of bridges on all the train tracks (which seems to be the usual style). What restriction did you intend?

Since they weren't tagged as one-way, and both-way is is reasonable assumption for an A-road... I'm unclear why you bothered?

Having both name and addr:housename is redundant.
I suggest only using the latter
(and/or number, if possible).

This change doesn't look right.
A whole town has been labelled as a single building.

The new position looks aligned with the tower top, on current Bing imagery - but the image was taken from an offset, and the base of the tower is a bit to the East.
Also, how about merging the building area with the watertower node?

fixed; thanks

fixed; thanks