No need for you to do anything here - another user has already edited it.

changeset/138139248

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for spotting this/updating the map. It can take a while for these changes to propagate to routing software, sometimes of the order of weeks.

It might work a little better if you add the gate as a node (point) as close to where it is actually located, tagged with:
barrier=gate + access=private + locked=yes

Removing the highway=service tag unfortunately means that OSM now thinks it has a very long gate with a lot of access tags.

If you'd like any help with this, please let me know.

Thanks. I'm restoring the remaining tags unintentionally deleted by this new user on other objects in Croydon at the moment.

Please don't remove tags you don't understand. Centrale has not ceased to be a shop=mall or building=retail.

Please stop removing non-building tags from buildings.

Take way/161279606: you don't need to misuse the name=* tag by appending the description "(Multilevel Garage Parking)". That is what the tags amenity=parking + parking=multi-storey were *for*.

Data consumers use tag values to determine what a map feature is. They don't parse the name=* tag tag for this, as they expect it to contain the name and *only* the name of the feature.

Removing tags without understanding their function is profoundly unhelpful.

#DWG

Has Fairfield Halls suddenly closed? If not, why remove the amenity=theatre tag?

If Croydon Magistrate's Court has suddenly closed, please could you let HM Courts and Tribunals Service know, as they seem to think it's still open?
https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/croydon-magistrates-court

Has St Mary's Catholic Church been deconsecrated?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I'm afraid that your edit dragged several nodes on buildings and roads quite a way out of position.

Although I'm not familiar with the Rapid editor, I'd be happy to help you with the changes you were trying to make, if I can.

No harm done, I've reverted your changes in changeset/138035798

Leaving us with strange zigzags which clearly don't exist. Thanks for that.

I think it was an unconnected node where it joined the cycleway, but I've also added explicit foot=yes tags (probably redundant).

Done. It's got the default access for a footway (an implicit foot=yes), but it's unlikely to route random people that way as it's a dead end.

changeset/137958485

Yes, just use "proposed:building" as the tag name instead of "building". You could prefix other tags for the proposed buildings with "proposed:" as well, but building is the one which really matters.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for adding this.

It might be better to tag it as following, although most pedestrian routing software is unlikely to be aware of it before the 9th.

bridge:structure=floating
bridge=yes
description=Silverworks Island Temporary Bridge, in place on the 1st, 2nd and 9th July 2023 .
foot:conditional=yes @ (2023 Jul 01-02 12:00-17:00; 2023 Jul 09 12:00-17:00)
foot=no
highway=footway
layer=1
name=Silverworks Island Temporary Bridge
seamark:bridge:category=pontoon
seamark:type=bridge

I'm happy to add these, if you have no objections.

If you do have OSM-compatible sources for proposed buildings, please could you tag them as proposed:building=* rather than building=*, as objects which do not yet exist should not be rendered on the map, or available to data consumers as if they did.

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

That could be a problem, however I am *not* an expert on copyright and licensing. OSM's Licensing Working Group may be able to clarify if you are unsure.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group

The Greater London Authority release a lot of open data under OGLv3, but this does not appear to apply to the whole london.gov.uk site:

"The site contains copyright material, trade names and other proprietary information, including, but not limited to, text, photos, graphics, video and audio. The entire contents of the site are protected by copyright law. We, or our licensors, own copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement and enhancement of such content, as well as in the content original to it."

https://www.london.gov.uk/terms-and-conditions/terms-and-conditions-use-our-website-and-talk-london-website

What are your sources for these updates? You have not listed any in your changeset tags.

If the source is Croydon Council's planning website, what is the licence for their data? I cannot see anything to indicate that it is covered by an OSM-compatible one like the Open Government Licence (OGL).

Has the Premier Inn here closed?

Grow up.

Vandalism reverted in changeset/137933817

One short section of footway is tagged as both foot=permissive and designation=public_footpath, which seems to be contradictory.

The PRoW data for Kent/Sevenoaks Urban suggests that this is part of public footpath SU30, but OSM currently has this path following a different alignment.

As this is all on National Trust land, hopefully it's something you can check and correct more easily than me.

way/1134826307
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/sevenoaks/sevenoaks-urban/

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

When you add a separate sidewalk to a road, there is also a sidewalk tag on the road which can be updated so that data consumers are aware of it.

You can use the "Pavement" overlay in StreetComplete to update these tags, which can sometimes be quicker and easier than doing it with iD.

sidewalk=*