So different highway types imply different access by default. For example a motorway or motorway_link will only suggest access for motor vehicles and no other means of transport. A pedestrian road will only suggest access for foot and no other means unless explicitly added (like "bicycle=yes")
Likewise highway=bridleway will allow access by default only to foot,bicycle&horse.

Access=no on a highway should only be used if the road or path is legally closed (for a substantial period of time)
Also I believe that the bridge on Lewes' Highstreet does allow some vehicles with conditional access, although from memory the signage is very inconstant.

Why have you tagged the old High Street Bridge over the River ouse as access=no?

Please stop mapping Valley Gardens as the old layout. The current layout has been built over the past few years, finally opening fully last Summer/Autumn. I have reverted this change set again so the map is now correct. Do not make any changes to it without up to date information, preferably on the ground survey.
Here is my most recent recorded evidence of the layout (most from Aug/Sep 2020)
https://youtu.be/7A0DnMHOTB4
I have raised this with the data working group, I'd suggest to stop eroding your creditability and only edit things that you have proof of.

I've reverted the changeset as I don't expect you know how revert it

You do know that you have reverted the road layout to what is was months ago. The new layout has been operating for a while now. Please revert changeset since the map is now showing the completely wrong layout including parallel bus only roads that have never existed. Before changing road layouts drastically, its better to do a on the ground survey, if not possible the least you could of done is looked at multiple imagery sources or searched on the internet about it.

Changing the M23 J10a slip road back to how it was before

Wondering why you have changed access to no on way/186899660?

Hi Aaro,
Normally pavements (or sidewalks) in the UK are tagged as part of the road that they are attached to by using the tag sidewalk=left/right/both. With the additional tags available for width & surface etc. The only time "sidewalks" are tagged in the UK is usually when there is something physically segregating the roadway from the footway such as a hedge, or when the footway is also a cycleway.
Also w/886973072 ("Ockley Lane Path") Sounds more like a description rather than the name.
Also some of these "sidewalks" have access=no & foot=yes, which I'd imagine is incorrect.

osm.wiki/Sidewalks

So on the wiki there is this section
highway=path#Usage_as_a_universal_tag
I presume this is correct somewhere in the world, but not here. Plus the article shows the typical Road sign for shared/segregated foot/cycle ways (although we omit the horizontal line). On the cycleway page highway=cycleway it shows the sign, however this sign is for an actual cycleway/track (although foot traffic isn't prohibited, it is not designed for it).

These really ought to be clarified since they hold conflicting information.

If the tagging guidelines of cycleways/paths in the UK is different to the rest of the world, should there be a dedicated wiki page for "cycle tagging in the UK" or something?

I am under the impression that highway=cycleway is for ways that are fully designed around bicycles, such as the examples in the video below.
https://youtu.be/D-o6mSnyWTM

While there isn't a great deal of these in the UK, how would it be possible to differentiate between these and shared use paths if they are both tagged the same?

Gavin, The talk-gb mailing list.

I've put this to the mailing list to see what the general consensus is.

http://jervi.uk/stuff/path.pdf
Take a look.
I am now even more certain that highway=cycleway is just plain wrong for this path.
If you can come up with any VALID points for it to be incorrectly tagged as a cycleway, I'd like to hear them, otherwise I am not interested in your victim playing games.

I'm not going to contact the original mapper unless it was recently edited, or had a note on it explaining why it was tagged in such a way.

Well OSMand is rending highway=path & bicycle=designated the exact same as highway=cycleway.
The path is a shared surface, used by more foot traffic than bicycles, as well as being designed for both. So highway=cycleway wouldn't be suitable since how its currently tagged reflects is use better.
The bicycle relation exists (relation/21018) & it is tagged as designated for cycles, so OSM and any render, router or other system can easily identify it as suitable and preferable for bicycles to use.

If you wish to ask someone at the Data Working Group or another admin role to resolve this then go for it.

Could you give an example of where, looking at all the ones changed only seem to be shared spaces, not cycle tracks/cycleways

As far as I can see, the changeset improved the tagging. If the paths were designed for bicycles with access for foot traffic, the previous tagging would be correct, but that isn't the case at any of the changes on this change set.

OSM is to reflect what is actually on the ground, and shouldn't be altered to suit a render (such as OSMand).

I've just downloaded OSMand, and it is showing highway=path and bicycle=designated in blue (when in the cycle mode) just the same as highway=cycleway. Likewise every other service I've used shows them the same. Maybe you are running an old version of the software, or not on the cycle mode.

Presuming you are referring to the changes on Centurion Way. highway=cycleway is for ways that are designed & designated only for bicycles (however can have foot access to), however Centurion Way is designed as a shared path, with both foot & cycle traffic, as such it is tagged as a path with foot & bicycle with designated access as per guidelines set out in the wiki.
highway=path#Usage_as_a_universal_tag

Are you sure that this housing development is now complete?
When I went past a few months ago it appeared to still be a long way from finishing.

The track to the West is a public way (stops at edge of MoD land.
I've cycled down it and it is kinda an overgrown old asphalt surface, doesn't lead anywhere accept a gate (I'd presume for emergency access)

The rest of the Cuckoo Lane I'd suggest to be destination rather than permissive since you would have to pass through a checkpoint, therefor unauthorised people & vehicles are not allowed beyond.

Hatching doesn't mean to use two separate ways. Unless there is something physical in-between the two ways, it should only be mapped as a single way (in 99.9% of cases in the UK) - Other countries channelise lanes using road markings (the road is just one big paved areas with markings showing the edge of the driveable area, in the UK we do not and use islands because of our climate. If you want to see what they look like, have a look at some of the new emergency sliproads on smart motorways - those are(w/594570571).
Links are used for ways that link two other ways. If a way crosses another way at-grade then it must be mapped as the appropriate way, if actual separated (physically) ways exist for certain turn movements, then these may be mapped as links (normally the lower classification for at-grade, however can be the higher if appropriate). If two separate ways cross at separated grades (i.e. one passes over the other on a bridge), then the slip roads should be mapped as links, of the highest classification.
Links CAN be two-way roads, w/818512442 should be mapped as trunk_link as its purpose if to link the trunk road with the tertiary road - this was correct before your C/S
likewise w/699493776 that you changed a while back and I couldn't be arsed to fix it again. There are other mistakes with this way which are my fault upon looking at it again that I will fix now I've seen them.

Also please can you not remove the names from the imaginary links onto side roads as this makes interpretating the information more difficult for data customers as for example a sat nav would have to say "turn left onto road" instead of "turn left onto Halfway House Lane".

Also I suggest you start reading the wiki and the notes on the map, they can be extremely useful for not messing things up.

note/496126 for example.

875878531 - no actual island. There are no two trunk_link there is just 1 service
208137299 - same as above
208286770 - why has the name been removed? - Here there is an island but shouldn't justify being a trunk_link - it is a minor road connecting onto a trunk road - trunk_link is usually used for when there is a fully formed slip road, or if makes sense to use it, single property accesses are NOT trunk_link. - and you have done the same with the A27 I've seen too.
875878536 - This is still part of the main carriageway. Plus I only corrected this junction a few months back...

Junctions along this part of the A46 weren't mapped great to being with, I've been correcting them as I survey them, however you have seemed to of made all the junctions worse than they were before.

Please read the wiki on how to map these things and use a bit of sense with it as well. And also survey the actual areas rather than just depending on bing.

I do think otherwise, and have removed the banned turns that are not signposted, or shown by traffic signals.
In the majority of cases the turns are very possible to do, and safely even in a long vehicle.