Reverted. If you don't understand the tagging, please don't change it.

The camera "catches" people who make a deliberate choice to break the law by deliberately ignoring a traffic sign.

Reverted.

Not being able to use this as a short-cut is access=permissive (as previously tagged) or access=destination. If your routing software sent you this way, you should file a bug report with the software provider.

I'd just revert. I knew what I was doing and why I was doing it when I tagged this as permissive.

Did you mean to delete the name of bus stop L (Valley Drive)? Was the name incorrect and if so what is it called?

Thanks for updating this.

As you asked for a review of this changeset, I would suggest using a lifecycle prefix rather than the disused key, in this case disused:amenity=bank. It can also be worth moving the name to old_name. I've updated the tags here and there's a link to the wiki page for lifecycle prefixes below.

Is the Barclays ATM (mapped as a separate node) still there?

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

What was your source for this unsigned weight limit?

You appear to have tagged a section of Bath 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 that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?
https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=51.444843%7E-2.57872&lvl=22.0&mo=om.1&pi=-10.6&style=x&dir=5.2

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.

I can't get up there to check at the moment, but there was a post today on the Better Streets Waltham Forest Facebook group about this crossing now being complete.

Yes, they were correctly tagged as highways. You may be conflating the legal concept of a highway with the OpenStreetMap highway=* object tag.

As these highways exist and are visible on the aerial imagery, the correct approach is to add the access=private tag, not to delete them from the map.

Please read the following wiki articles before you proceed further:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Some of these track are also shown on OS OpenMap Local, which does not provide for marking them as private access. There is absolutely no prospect of you convincing OS to delete these.

Reverted in changeset/152234116

The criteria which StreetComplete and SCEE use for this quest make sense in many parts of the world, where pedestrians often are prohibited on sections of road like this. Unfortunately, it doesn't really work in the UK: we either get a correct (but unhelpful to routers) foot=yes, or an incorrect foot=no.

I use SCEE most days and this is the only quest of which I am aware which regularly causes tagging errors.

I'll remove the tag.

@BCNorwich It's a canal, so leisure=swimming_area is unlikely.

You appear to have tagged a section of Walsall 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 that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?
https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=52.545149%7E-1.932508&lvl=19.1&mo=om.1&pi=3.6&style=x&dir=340.5

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.

I'm not convinced that this is correct. My understanding is that road traffic legislation applies to any road to which the public have access (see s. 142 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and s. 192 Road Traffic Act 1988).

As Highview Place isn't lit, but it's only 60-70m long, I wonder if it still counts as a restricted road as all points of it are presumably within 200yds of the nearest street light on Strood Gate?

However, the maxspeed:type=GB:zone30 was definitely wrong, as there's no such thing as a 30 mph zone.

Deleting the Westbound carriageway of the A27 and all its associated tags and replacing it with a way simply tagged highway=trunk + oneway=yes is hardly a correction.

If your routing test does not work as expected, the solution is not to damage the OpenStreetMap database.

Please explain what you were trying to do and what you believe the problem with the OSM data was, *without* making edits which you do not understand.

Reverted in changeset/152171143

Many thanks for adding this section of Wootton St Lawrence FP 22.

If you are trying to improve the mapping of public rights of way in your area, you may find this resource useful:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/hants/basingstoke-deane/wootton-st-lawrence/

You appear to have tagged a section of Onslow Road 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.

https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=50.912299%7E-1.400481&lvl=20.6&mo=om.1&pi=-16.2&style=x&dir=264.3

Thank you.

If you are experiencing unexpected behaviour from OpenStreetMap-based routing software which you are using, you will need to raise a support ticket with the software supplier.

Adding a higher speed limit than the real one might reduce the cost of traversing that edge, but to the detriment of other data consumers.

I would also hope that routing software would ignore a 70mph speed limit set on a single carriageway secondary road in the UK, since this is likely to be a legal impossibility.

You may also be a able to find some assistance on the OSM Community Forums.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/

No, you're repeatedly vandalising the database. None of your edits will ever last long enough to get onto the update files which your routing software uses. Give up.

Don't vandalise the OSM database to address faults in defective routing software. Reverted.

There's no such thing as a 65mph speed limit in the UK. Don't vandalise the OSM database by adding fiction in order to make the software you use work, raise a ticket with the software provider.

Reverted, obviously.