You appear to have tagged two sections of Fox Milne Roundabout 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 that a 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. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

You appear to have tagged the link between carriageways on the A45 as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence 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 that a prohibition exists and have therefore reverted your edit.

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

You appear to have tagged a section of Duncannon Street 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 that a prohibition exists and have reverted your edit.

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

A POI is a Point of Interest. In this case, you deleted a postbox in front of numbers 3/4 Hammonds Ridge.

You also added a taxi rank with a 4 car capacity in the middle of the London Road/Jane Murray Way. Were this not sufficiently improbable on its own, the rank was supposedly called "Pleb Taxi Airport Runs" and operated by "Mr Plebby McPlebbington". I can only speculate as to your motives in including that mobile number several times.

OpenStreetMap is a live database and the addition of fictitious information is generally regarded as vandalism.
osm.wiki/Vandalism

Your changeset comment here was "Initial add with Bitcoin tags", which is an inadequate description of your edit.
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Is the licence of CAMRA's proprietary WhatPub? database compatible with OSM? The statement that "Where not already belonging or assigned to others, all material remains our copyright." on the site would suggest otherwise.

These pedestrian areas might have been better mapped as area:highway=footway than area=yes + highway=footway (which is arguably tagging for the renderer), but they represent something different to the linear highway=footway ways and should not have been deleted. I have reinstated and re-tagged them in changeset/148282741

Which lint tool are you using and what was the actual "error" reported?

Hi @trigpoint. I'm waiting for a reply from @ajmat as they give a source more recent than the Mapillary imagery available to me. If I don't get a response, I'll go there tomorrow and check.

The POI you have created is in South London, but has an address and postcode in Southampton, together with what appears to be a Bangladeshi telephone number. Wherever it is, it's not here.

Where sidewalks were tagged with sidewalk:both=separate, please could you replace with sidewalk:left=separate rather than when splitting sidewalk=separate? I've spent quite a lot of time checking and changing sidewalk=separate tags to sidewalk:$side=separate.

I've fixed the separate sidewalk tagging here in changeset/148278957

Please could you explain why this now has access=no? Current tagging allows only motor vehicles to reach a destination, but prohibits pedestrians and cyclists (despite being explicitly signed for contraflow cycling).

Mis-tagging as a highway=living_street (not from your edit) fixed in changeset/148278156

Please could you explain what your are trying to achieve here? Adding only name=강남쩜오 to a node where two roads intersect is unlikely do anything useful.

Please don't add fiction to the map. Please don't delete POIs without an explanation. Please use meaningful changeset comments. (Reverted, obviously)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

A highway=pedestrian area shouldn't need a foot=yes tag, as that is implicit.

If you are having problems with routing software failing to route across the pedestrian area, this may be because some routers do not work very well with pedestrian areas.

It might be worth adding a highway=footway way from the pedestrian crossing of North Street by the roundabout to the station entrance. If you would like any help with this, please let me know.

For more information about implied access tags, see:
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

I wasn't aware that age or incompleteness were criteria for summary deletion.

Even if they were, mass deletion of these objects is not what a changeset comment of "Corrected tag issues around Ingatestone" suggests.

The area:highway polygons surrounding the highway lines are different, since they represent different things about the roads. You may consider them unnecessary duplication, but nobody is forcing anyone else to process geometries or tags for which they have no use.

What was "incorrect" about the area:highway=* polygons which justified their outright deletion? T
I can see that there were some redundant area=yes tags which should have been deleted, but what was wrong with the geometries?

Thanks. I see from the example you gave the the Crawley endpoint is the place=town node for Crawley, located in Southgate Playing Field (presumably the approximate geometric centre of the town).
node/17722928

Oddly, Metrobus's planner seems happy to use a start point in the middle of playing fields, but declines to produce a route unless the end point is changed to Horsham Station (Stop K) or Horsham Station (Stop L).

It might be worth raising this with Metrobus, as it is possible that moving the railway station node will not solve the problem. Even if it does solve it, it is also likely that someone will move it back to its original position.

If you don't have any luck with Metrobus support, you could try asking for help at https://community.openstreetmap.org/

What was the journey planning problem caused by the railway station node being roughly in the centre of the station? Is this related to a particular app or website?

How does adding a non-existent section of dual carriageway "align" the geometry of the junction?

Unless TfL have installed a physical barrier between carriageways very recently, the only separation between the traffic island at the junction with Woolwich New Road and the crossing island at the traffic lights is by painted road markings.

Is there a TomTom originated MapRoulette challenge actually asking users to tag for the router by adding dual carriageways where no physical separation exists?

osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway
dual_carriageway=yes#Bad_mapping

Please don't tag for the renderer