I see that you have changed the address of your business, but the POI is still located in Whitechapel High Street. Would you like it moved to a location which matches the new address?

Please don't tag for the renderer.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Do you know if the Castle Baynard Street tunnel on C3 has reopened yet?

Oh, I see.I think it's one of the more questionable "features" of the iD editor, where I tries to protect the names of objects where wiki tags are present.

Please could you explain the rationale for changing the name of a railway line to "Chatham Main Line", but removing the wikidata and wikipedia tags for Chatham Main Line?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding more public rights of way to the map.

You may, or may not, find this online tool useful for mapping and tagging PRoWs in your area.
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/sevenoaks/sevenoaks-rural/

You don't really need to add the note or bicycle and horse tags, as a public footpath correctly tagged as highway=footway + designation=public_footpath is already pedestrian only for routing purposes. If people are riding horses or bicycles across the golf course, it is unlikely to be because OSM-based routing software sent them that way.

If it had been tagged as highway=path, then you might have needed horse=no and bicycle=no

osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

Thanks for spotting this. I think the routing problem was caused by the extension of the service road through through a non-existent gate onto Brookscroft Road.

I've tweaked this a little, reinstating the service road as a dead-end parking aisle, terminating on a noexit=yes node.

changeset/147207163

Thanks for spotting and correcting this. Removing area=yes was clearly wrong for railway=platform, since the wiki explicitly states that it's required.

It took a while to find another station where this arose and it appears that the JOSM unnecessary tag rule incorrectly flags area=yes in combination with indoor=*

Ticket logged as:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/23463#ticket

Unfortunately, you also deleted the bridge structure, rather than just editing the access tags. I have restored this.

Does the reopened bridge have ramped access instead of or in addition to the original steps, or is access still only via steps? If it is just steps, removing them and adding bicycle=yes might be a little unhelpful for cyclists and wheelchair users.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for adding a missing pedestrian link.

You can include the steps themselves as a segment in the middle of the new footway using highway=steps, which is documented here:
highway=steps

If you'd like any help with this, please feel free to ask.

The key taxi=yes in the UK applies to taxis, not to PHVs. Unfortunately, what you have done is prohibited access to taxis. The motor_vehicle=no tag already prohibited PHVs. I have reverted your edit accordingly.

How access tags work in OSM is documented in the wiki here:
access=*

Unrelated landuse polygons removed in changeset/147084307

As the relation's name (changed to description, because it's clearly not a name in the OSM sense) explicitly states that it is for collecting *buildings*, is there any reason for it to contain objects which are not tagged with building=* or building:part=* ?

Also, please read osm.wiki/Relations_are_not_categories

Cycleways, sidewalks, crossings and PRoWs removed in changeset/147084021

Roads removed in changeset/147083834

Thanks for spotting and fixing that!

For some reason, another mapper had changed what is obviously a pedestrianised street to highway=unclassified, added access=no and forgot to allow pedestrians. I've changed it back to the original highway=pedestrian and removed the access=no tag.

Is it privately owned, or gated? Can visitors, deliveries and taxis drive to a destination on this street without explicit permission?

"Private Road" signs rarely mean access=private, simply that the road is unadopted.

Adding foot=no implies a legal prohibition for pedestrians on the carriageway, which would be explicitly signed. Adding appropriate sidewalk tags (in this case, sidewalk:both=separate).

Adding access=no prohibited routing across the bridge for *all* transport modes, which is unlikely to be what you intended.

Thanks for spotting and fixing that. I've added sidewalk tagging to the road and removed the silly and redundant access tags which iD encourages its users to add.