Many thanks.

You appear to have tagged several section of roads 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 in any of these locations. 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.

Reverted, see discussion in changeset/153312735

My apologies, reverted.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I have removed the public right of way (PRoW) tags from your informal path edge diversion.

Lambourne FP11 follows the route across the field which is clearly visible in the Bing aerial imagery and in the Essex County Council PRoW GIS data.

https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/epping-forest/lambourne/

Can I assume that you are using highway=service + area=yes polygons around a highway=residential line, despite the fact that this is clearly incorrect tagging, because this renders in the OSM Carto tiles?

If so, please don't tag for the renderer.

While area:highway=* is not rendered in OSM Carto, it is still more "correct" for the non-routable 2D area of parts of highways.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

That seems reasonable, as I would probably tag an address in Seven Kings with addr:suburb=Seven Kings + addr:city=Ilford.

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

Unfortunately, you also changed a residential area polygon into a single and very large building. As aerial imagery show that this is not the case, I have reverted that part of your edit.
way/110505656

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Rather than using amenity=office, which is deprecated and unlikely to be rendered on maps, a tag like office=accountant, office=financial_advisor, or office=tax_advisor should be used.

Adding your address would probably also help people find you.

I have added links to the relevant documentation below, but please let me know if you need any help.

osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom
office=*

Hi,

It's great that you are mapping the 2D non-routable areas of residential roads, something I rarely have time to do.

However, please could you use area:highway=residential rather than tagging it as a routable highway=service area?

If you use highway=residential + area=yes, iD produces the warning "Residential road should be a line, not an area". Although changing it to highway=service will removes this warning, it introduces incorrect data.

Thanks.

area:highway=*
osm.wiki/Proposal:Street_area

Cities aren't a meaningful administrative unit in England. The previously and correctly tagged admin_level=8 corresponds to "Metropolitan districts, non-metropolitan districts, London boroughs".

In England, admin_level=10 is used for parish councils.

Please read the following before you "correct" any further administrative boundaries.
boundary=administrative#admin_level=*_Country_specific_values

As this could break queries, I have reverted your changeset.
changeset/153122564

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

Although the iD editor you're using unhelpfully presents all the common access tags as if they all need to be completed, you usually don't need to change them on highway=footway lines. The default access allows pedestrians and forbids everything else. The other access tags are only needed where there are exceptions.

osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

In most cases, you don't actually need to add oneway=no to roads, as they are two way by default. Adding the tag does no harm, but it is unlikely to have any effect on routing software.

oneway=*

@InsertUser Thanks. I'll leave it in DWG's hands.

500 of these possibly re-inserted in changeset/152889949

All of these are at version 1, so they have been created (or re-created) rather than restored. This means the the entire edit history of these objects has been lost.

Please could you supply some information about the changeset(s) which deleted these objects. This changeset and the changesets which deleted the objects should be reverted.

Rather than deleting features which exist and are visible on aerial imagery, it is far better to add appropriate access tagging to indicate that they are private. If a feature is deleted, it is likely to be re-added later, without the access tags.

You may find this page in the wiki useful, as it addresses a similar issue.
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

I have restored the parking area and added appropriate tags in changeset/152875149

No problem, thanks for replying so quickly.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Please could you explain why you added and then removed ~50 buildings?

Please also supply a meaningful changeset comment.

Thanks.

Unfortunately, this created an issue rather than fixing it. Adding motor_vehicle=designated means that the road is intended for use by ALL motor vehicles. Signage at the entrance is no entry (for all vehicles) except local buses.

TfL and bus company tow trucks and Newham street cleaning vehicles have explicit permission which is covered by access=private.

I have re-tagged the roads as access=private + bus=designated and removed the motor_vehicle=designated tags.
changeset/152728183