That's annoying from OsmAnd. Given the described state of the path, it might be worth adding appropriate smoothness and tracktype tags.

Thanks for editing OpenStreetMap.

If a footpath is already mapped as highway=footway, the default access for bicycles, horses, motor vehicles, etc. is already "no". Adding those tags does no harm, but they are unlikely to have any effect on routing software.

It can sometimes be worth adding bicycle=no if there is a sign explicitly prohibiting cycling. Where a sign is present, you can also add the sign itself by adding a node (point) on the path at the location nearest the sign, tagged with traffic_sign=GB:951 + bicycle=no

Please STOP degrading crossing=traffic_signals nodes to crossing=marked

As someone who actually lives here and uses the data in real life, blindly changing tags without understanding what you're doing or why is incredibly unhelpful.

What is the point of these sidewalks, other than decorative mapping for the renderer?

Sidewalks which do not connect via crossings at junctions are at best useless for pedestrian navigation, but often create absurdly circuitous routes.

Is this an explicitly signed prohibition?

Hi, thanks for updating the map. The best way to tag this restriction is actually motor_vehicle=destination

motor_vehicle=destination

Another user had already updated the tags, so there's nothing you need to do.

I've reset the tagging on crossings in Greater London where this seems to have happened, so there shouldn't be anything further for you to do.

Is there a sign explicitly prohibiting buses ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made#tgp1-tbl1-tbd1-tr17 ) from using the section of Vyne Road passing under Basingstoke Station? Access tags like bus=no represent legal access rights and restrictions.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You appear to have moved some bus stop nodes onto the highway. Nodes mapped as highway=bus_stop + public_transport=platform represent the position where passengers board.

public_transport=platform

The place where buses stop on the highway can be added as a public_transport=stop_position node.

public_transport=stop_position

The platform and the stop position can be linked together using a public_transport=stop_area relation.

public_transport=stop_area

Please ensure that you have read and understood the documentation before making further edits to bus stops. If you need any help, feel free to ask.

I have reverted your edit in changeset/158570330

No problem, I've added it.

Thanks. If it's a private (unadopted) road, you could also add ownership=private

ownership=private

Thank you!

I think the problem may be the way in which RapiD is trying to synchronise the tagging of crossing nodes and ways. Unfortunately, it seems to be giving precedence to the tagging on the way over tagging on the node. I'll take a proper look later on and raise an issue on the RapiD project on Github if that's the case.

Please don't change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked (yes, I know RapiD suggests it, it's wrong). Removing this information is very unhelpful for pedestrian navigation.

Please stop mis-tagging signalised crossings as crossing=uncontrolled

The crossing represented by node/33408745 is between two traffic lights. It's definitely controlled (that's what the traffic lights are for) and is now correctly tagged as crossing=traffic_signals

node/33408745

Vandalism reverted.

I'm not sure why you deleted node/8090874377

node/8090874377/history

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I am not sure why you deleted the traffic signal node before the pedestrian crossing on Pall Mall East, but I have reverted your edit in changeset/158385883

What were you trying to do?

OSM does not route anyone anywhere, that is done by third party routing software. Unless there is a real legal prohibition on using the ford, access=no and the other similar tags which you have added are incorrect and should be removed. Access tags reflect the legal position, not personal opinions on suitability for a mode of transport.

Adding flood_prone=yes seems quite reasonable.

You could also consider adding hazard=flooding and possibly depth, see:
osm.wiki/Tag%3Ahazard%3Dflooding
ford=yes

It can take time for routing software to update from OSM data - what are you using?

I think using dismount would potentially exclude people using a cycle as a mobility aid, or using a cycling profile in a router.

Perhaps something like bicycle=permissive + maxspeed:bicycle=walk + note=* might cover it?
maxspeed=*

As @8329 has not responded after 3 weeks, I have reverted this in changeset/158202605