Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your edit looks fine to me, although the operator tag should probably be the academy trust rather than the headteacher.

The addr:city tag should be Wallington rather than London. Although it's within the London Borough of Sutton, the post town is normally used for this tag in the UK. There's documentation on this at osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom

Many thanks. StreetComplete is a great tool and I use it most days, but it's just this one quest which isn't a really good for for how things work (or don't) in the UK.

* Added house numbers from out of copyright OS maps, specifically NLS - OS 1:1,250/1:2,500 National Grid maps, 1947-1963

As @Badr_Bni has replied but not explained the purpose of their changeset, reversion and a reminder of the import guidelines seems appropriate.

osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

You appear to have tagged a section of the A46 North of Park Hill Lane 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.

@matt_ellery Thanks.

If the signage at the bus station entrance is unchanged from that in the Bing street side imagery (no entry except local buses), the access tags should probably be:

vehicle=no + bus=designated + emergency=yes

It shouldn't have motor_vehicle=yes or bicycle=yes tags, as both are explicitly forbidden by that sign.

https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=51.062492%7E-0.333052&lvl=19.5&mo=om.1&pi=1.2&style=x&dir=30.2

A parking aisle is a road in the OSM sense, so instead of deleting a feature which clearly does exist, it should be tagged correctly. See service=parking_aisle

I have added the car park and tagged both car park and parking aisle as private in changeset/151723739

Hi, thanks for adding bus=yes here, although the psv=yes which was already present should cover both buses and taxis. I've added taxi=yes for added clarity.

Unusually for a traffic restriction in Newham, motor_vehicle=permit applies as the original experimental traffic order granted an exemption for holders of A1 access permits, granted to local residents. I've changed it to motor_vehicle=private + private=residents and added a source tag pointing to the traffic order.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3347560

Please could you explain what this continent-spanning changeset is about.

Please also supply a meaningful changeset comment for future updates and limit your edits to a smaller area.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Is this an Emergency Rendezvous Point? I don't know if there's an appropriate way to tag this as a seamark or emergency facility, but there may be something in the documentation linked below.
osm.wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects
osm.wiki/Emergency_facilities_and_amenities

If not, it could be worth asking in the OSM Community Forum.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Was dumping duplicates of traffic calming features right next to ones which had already been mapped by competent mappers supposed to help data consumers in some way?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your business to the map.

Tagging with shop=supermarket seems unlikely to be the most appropriate choice, based on your website content.

Perhaps amenity=training or one of the values of office=* might be a better fit?

amenity=training
office=*

This may not do quite what you expect. Using an access value of permissive means that anyone is permitted to use that road, but that the permission may be revoked at any time.

If this is the service road for the waste water treatment works, then destination may be appropriate, or private if explicit permission is required in advance (or if there's a locked gate).

There's a full explanation of access tagging on the Wiki here:
access=*

Thanks for the reassurance. Unfortunately, the comment did give the impression that the OS map was the source.

What you describe counts as your own survey. When you upload in the iD editor, you can select "Survey" and "GPS" as sources and this will add that information to the changeset.

Thanks!

Please keep up the good work with StreetComplete, that quest aside it's one of the best tools available to improve OpenStreetMap.

You appear to have tagged some sections of Watling Street and the A5 roundabout 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 the sections of Melton Road approaching the roundabout from the NE 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.

If you area using OS Explorer Sheet 149 as a source, this is subjrect to Ordnance Survey's copyright and MUST NOT be used as a source for OpenStreetMap.

There is OSM-compatible open data available for Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) in you area, available from
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/swale/swale-rural/

There's a more information on copyright and OSM at the links below.

osm.wiki/Copyright
osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey

If it's designated as a public footpath, the value for foot is designated or yes, never unknown.

Although the iD editor presents it as if the field ought to be completed, the general access=no tag is almost never appropriate or helpful on a footway, cycleway, or bridleway.