Thanks for adding these. Would it be worth tagging these as building=storage_tank rather than building=yes?

building=storage_tank

Reverted by @JezCrow in changeset/160043393

(Review requested)

That looks fine, thanks.

Also, please don't delete driveways unless they no longer exist. I will undelete the ones you removed in this changeset.

Mis-tagged crossing fixed changeset/159982087

Please stop doing this. Pedestrian crossings at traffic signals are not uncontrolled and persistently mis-tagging them as such gives misleading information to data consumers.

Grow up. Vandalism reverted.

Has the driveway been removed?

If not, it should be tagged as highway=service + service=driveway (+ access=private if appropriate).

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

If a road is a driveway, it should be tagged as highway=service + service=driveway.
service=driveway

(Review requested)

The position can be fixed when the aerial imagery catches up, so that's fine.

I see that you have already added junction=roundabout to the circular way in changeset/159739033

Thanks for adding it and checking LLDC.

I've updated it using more recent INSPIRE data than the OSM overlay, which is a little out of date.
changeset/159709953

This "busway" has no physical separation from the A2 Chatham Hill and was already tagged correctly before @demisee added it (they have a tendency to map, very badly, for the renderer). If you wish to improve TomTom's routing, delete the pretend busway.

way/111202846

(Review requested)

Looks fine to me, thanks.

(Review requested)

Unfortunately you dragged a point on Harper Road out of position, which is why the editor warned you about crossing highways before you uploaded it.

Please also use a meaningful changeset comment and a real source - "あ" is inadequate.

Reverted.

(Review requested)

Unfortunately, you dragged the NW end of Collinson Walk so that it appeared to pass through two buildings and join Stones End Street near its junction with Great Suffolk Street. This is why the editor displayed warnings before you uploaded your edit.

Reverted in changeset/159643072

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for contributing to this project.

I would like to make a couple of suggestions which might further improve the mapping for pedestrian navigation:

1) For most sidewalks in central London should probably be tagged with surface=paving_stones - although the paving stones may be mode out of concrete, surface=concrete is generally used for a poured concrete surface. In this area, a concrete surface is generally used only for service roads and as a temporary measure during construction works.
surface=paving_stones

2) When you add a kerb node, please avoid putting it on the main line of the sidewalk. From the wiki:
"Please do not add a barrier=kerb on a node joining the footways near the crossing (e.g. sidewalk footway joining with footway crossing the road). That would implicate that such kerbs block not only crossing the road, but also just using the sidewalk (i.e. without intending to cross the road), which is almost never the case - and which has a big implication for several classes of users (most notably, wheelchair users)."
barrier=kerb#On_a_node

Please see the other changeset comments about dual carriageways.

(Review requested)

Thanks for adding these and taking part in this project!

If I could make one suggestion, please could you avoid putting the kerb nodes on the sidewalks?

From barrier=kerb
"Please do not add a barrier=kerb on a node joining the footways near the crossing (e.g. sidewalk footway joining with footway crossing the road). That would implicate that such kerbs block not only crossing the road, but also just using the sidewalk (i.e. without intending to cross the road), which is almost never the case - and which has a big implication for several classes of users (most notably, wheelchair users)."

Most kerbs in central London are lowered or flush, so it's not quite as bad for wheelchair users as the wiki makes it sound, but it does mean that tactile paving nodes for the visually impaired might be in the wrong place.

Hi,

I know that Rapid suggests synchronising the tags between crossing ways and crossing nodes and unfortunately gives precedence to the tagging on the way. Please could you disregard this suggestion where it suggests degrading crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked? This is really unhelpful for pedestrian navigation (which rather defeats the object of this MwAI project) and also surveying of accessibility features with Street Complete.

Also, crossing:markings=dashes is almost always wrong for a pedestrian-only crossing on publicly maintained roads in the UK. The markings at signalised crossings are dots, per the wiki and UK traffic legislation (TSRGD diagram 1055.1).
crossing:markings=*#Values
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made#tgp3-tbl3-tbd1-tr55

Crossing tags repaired in changeset/159450035

Hi Tim. Thanks for fixing that. I think the bridleway might be better tagged as highway=bridleway rather than highway=path.

Sorry, reverted in changeset/159439095

If there is no physical separation between carriageways, don't add a fictitious separation on the map because you think it looks nicer.

Mini roundabouts are NOT roundabouts, do not map them as if they were. Different rules apply.