You appear to have tagged a section of Regent Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe and prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions are quite rare in the UK, other than on roads where pedestrians are implicitly prohibited due to being tagged with highway=motorway or motorroad=yes.

As real pedestrian prohibitions on normal roads in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

Thanks.

Is there really a legal restriction prohibiting pedestrians here?

I can't see any diagram 625.1 "Pedestrians prohibited" signs in the Bing streetside imagery.

Has the shared pavement cycle track along Priory Chase been physically removed? If not, why have you deleted it?

Adding nodes with the undocumented sidewalk=yes + continuous=yes tags was of little value to data consumers. Failing to attach the nodes to their parent highway ways reduced that value to zero.

Please could you explain what your source "ley1" actually is and confirm that it has an OpenStreetMap compatible licence?

Unless the building no longer exists, please do not remove a building=* tag. If you want to add landuse=*, please add it as a separate way.

Updated in changeset/142626735

Don't worry about it, absolutely no harm done!

Hi,

You don't need to exclude mopeds from motorways in the UK, as moped=no is the implicit default.

osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

In any case, adding moped=no to the route relation rather than highway segments is unlikely to have any effect.

If you're having a problem with routing software choosing UK motorways as appropriate routes for mopeds, you may need to raise a bug report with the provider.

Please stop deleting and replacing objects, as this not only loses the object's edit history, but also the tags any tags which you haven't copied over.

osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Reverted in changeset/142488342

Original track relation restored, along with its history and original tags in changeset/142486297

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for adding this path.

As you asked for a review, I have a couple of comments. I hope you find them useful and please don't hesitate to ask for help if you need it. These aren't critical enhancements, so it should be recognised by your routing software next time it updates (varies, can be weeks).

The name tag should only be used for the name, not a description.
name=*

In order to make routers aware of the opening hours for the path, you could do it with a conditional restriction, like:

foot=permissive
foot:conditional=no @ 17:00-07:00

You could also add the gate as a barrier=gate node and the same access tags. I've assumed that it's not a public right of way, hence the permissive access. It may also be better to change it from highway=path to highway=footway, as that implies bicycle=no, horse=no, etc. by default.

There's a ford=yes tag applied to the whole length of the path, which might deter routers from using it. If there is a ford, it would be better to map it as a ford=yes node at its position. Alternatively, if the path is prone to flooding, you could add the flood_prone=yes tag.
ford=yes
flood_prone=*

Why have you replaced the amenity=parking polygon (representing the entire car park, if you care to read the wiki) with two amenity=parking polygons (which should be amenity=parking_space). Discarding the object history, along capacity and operator information, was less than helpful.

Incidentally, what makes you think that the high jump mats are a building?
way/1214812417

You appear to have deleted several existing features in Mile End Park, together with their associated history and replaced them with similar geometries, but with fewer tags.

Please explain and revert.

OpenStreetMap is a live map and database, not the place for you to do test edits. The place for those is /dev/null or your own GIS.

Reverted in changeset/142393551

No problem, updated in changeset/142385424

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding the address.

As you asked for a review, I have one suggestion and a question.

If you want to include the full postal address in a single tag, you need addr:full rather than addr:housename.
addr:=**#Commonly_used_subkeys

Are you sure that you have added the address tags to the right object, as this appears to be the main building of Alfred Salter Primary School? There are already two objects named Scape Canada Water on the other side of Quebec Way:
way/1213007571
node/11252485981

Thanks.

Google Maps is not a permitted source for OpenStreetMap, so this changeset may need to be reverted or redacted.

osm.wiki/Google