How did adding a 5t weight limit when the signed HGV weight limit is 7.5t "improve" the street network, exactly?

That shouldn't be a problem, then. There's no need to prove existence via an external source, just your personal experience (source=survey or source=local_knowledge) is fine.

If the name tags is how they present it, I'd say that's fine. Adding name:en, like name:zh just makes it easier for data consumers. As for addr:unit, you'll still be discovering new tags or ways to tag things years later :-)

For food premises, you can often find additional information including addresses from the Food Hygiene Rating Service (FHRS), which is licensed under the OSM-friendly Open Government Licence. New premises can take a while to show up, but the FHODOT tool makes using the data easier:
https://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhodot/?lat=51.54235&lon=-0.14233&zoom=17&layer=fhrs

The tagging looks OK to me, although you could move the unit to addr:unit and add a name:en for just the English name.

What could be a problem is giving Google Maps as a source, as their copyright is incompatible with OpenStreetMap.

No problem, already updated.

Thanks for adding sidewalks and crossings in London, btw.

The crossings you tagged with crossing:markings=dashes are unmarked crossings and should be tagged as crossing:markings=no. Pedestrian crossings on public highways in the UK are not marked with dashes.

The dashed lines adjacent to those crossings are give way markings. They have nothing to do with pedestrian crossings.

Please don't change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked unless you are absolutely certain that the crossing is not controlled by traffic signals.

I've repaired the ASL and kerb nodes which you inadvertently dragged by several hundred metres. Please be more careful, as OSM is actually used for real World vehicle and pedestrian routing.

changeset/154098993

Hi,

I noticed that you added ref=C993 to Round Coppice Road. Unless this number is explicitly signposted, this should be changed to official_ref=C993.

Are you able to confirm that the licence of the SABRE Roads website is compatible with OpenStreetMap?

osm.wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom#Tagging_road_numbers

If Osprey Drive becomes a footpath beyond where the residential road ends, you could map that section as highway=footway rather than just truncating the road.

Can you remember what source you used to set access=destination on Melina Place? All I can see is a "no through road" sign (TSRGD diagram 816) and there's nothing to imply that the street is privately owned.

https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=51.529324%7E-0.176072&lvl=20.8&mo=om.1&pi=-10.9&style=x&dir=232.6

Please leave a meaningful changeset comment.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Are ALL of these roads explicitly signed as pedestrians prohibited (TSRGD diagram 625.1)? Can you provide any links to the relevant traffic orders?

The crossings mis-tagged as marked with dashes have now been fixed.

When you mis-tagged node/2177844432 as crossing:markings=ladder, did it occur to you that the correct tagging for a *zebra* crossing might be crossing:markings=zebra. They're quite common in the UK, as zebra crossings were invented here in 1951. We don't have ladder markings on crossings of public highways in the UK, they wouldn't be legal.

If you don't understand he existing tagging and don't understand the road markings you're looking at, please don't add nonsense to the map.

Please revert.

Please tag crossings correctly.

You've added some uselessly decorative sidewalks which provide no pedestrian routing benefit whatsoever.

You have also mis-tagged unmarked crossings as crossings marked with dashes because you cannot tell the difference between UK give way road markings and legalcrossing markings in the UK.

Please revert.

Also, don't change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked. These crossings were mapped correctly by local mappers who knew and cared what they were doing.

You have marked a crossing node (node/12055778699) with crossing:markings=dashes. It's obvious from the Bing aerial imagery that the crossing is unmarked.

The dashes next to the crossing are give way road markings and have nothing whatsoever to do with the crossing.

If you do not understand the UK road markings at which you are looking, please don't add wildly incorrect guesses to the map.

PS Did this #LondonWalkabout actually involve you physically walking around London? If it did, then the changeset source should include "survey".

ON the South side of Longford Street, you have drawn a sidewalk which crosses over the kerb line which was already mapped. Rapid warned you about this, yet you still uploaded.

You also added a pedestrian crossing on Osnaburgh Street which was between the give way node and the centre of the crossroads. The crossing node had already been mapped in the correct place as node/8908418097

I have cleaned up your mess on this occasion, but if you persist in making low quality edits and ignoring existing mapping, this will be referred to the Data Working Group.

Incidentally, if you are taking part in organised mapping, you MUST follow the Organised Editing Guidelines.