That's a resident of the CPZ, not of the street. Other permits are available and on the council's website.

Whatever the condition is, it certainly isn't the private=residents which you have used. I have no idea what private=permit is supposed to mean, as it isn't documented on the wiki page for private=*.

This also doesn't cover loading/unloading (delivery in OSM access terms), as it varies between CPZs and needs to be checked against the various traffic orders. I haven't yet captured that either, as I need to add parking:*:zone tags.

No, you'll get a permit by filling in a web form, e.g.

https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/parking-permits-and-suspensions/resident-traders-parking-permit

Why do you believe the section of driveway between The Grange's lift gate and Chobham Road is access=private? It may be ownership=private, but I'm pretty sure that, on the several times a week I walk past it, that there is no signage or physical access restriction to support this.

way/1075188840

Maybe discuss it with a local who actually understands how parking permits work around here first, or at least have the basic courtesy to discuss it?

From the wiki for access=permit:
"Open only to people who have obtained a permit granting them access, but permit is ordinarily granted. If permit is hard to obtain, then it is typically access=private."

In most London boroughs, residents are given an allocation of visitor permits. A permit is therefore very easy to obtain on request.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunately, your edit dragged the middle of Albury Road across Bridge Road and deleted a traffic calming feature. I have reverted this.

What were you trying to do and can I help?

Are the two crossings near the Westgate/Sherborne Road mini-roundabout parallel zebra and cycle crossings? The crossing_ref=parrelle looks like it may be a typo for parallel, but the Bing aerial and street side imagery is out of date.

node/12031952762
node/12031969270

Did you think that vandalising Heathrow Airport would the most effective way to spam search engines and promote your business?

Reverted in changeset/161138745

In which case, it would make more sense to move Majestic's tags to a separate node, remove all the business-specific tags from the building and add addr:housename=The Highlands House to it.

Unfortunately, your edit effectively deleted Majestic by removing important tags like shop=alcohol and the brand tags. I have reinstated these.

Also, with regard to the the psychotherapist located within the same building, adding it as a separate node is sufficient. You do not also need to rename Majestic or combine their names. See osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

No problem. You're not the first person to have been caught out by this and you won't be the last, so it's something which I periodically check.

Hi, thanks for adding this.

However, please note that dashes are *never* used as crossing markings for pedestrian-only crossings of public roads in the UK and the permissible markings are prescribed by legislation (specifically TSRGD 2016).

The double dashed line transverse markings on side roads are give way markings, which are tagged as separate highway=give_way nodes. They have nothing to do with the crossing.

Crossings like this are usually crossing=unmarked + crossing:markings=no

I see, thanks for the quick reply. I'll try to check it soon and have added notes at both approaches to the underpass.

Is the cycle prohibition in the Euston Underpass real, i.e. explicitly signed as such, or just a vague feeling that cyclists maybe ought not to go that way?

Pedestrian-only crossings of public roads in the UK are *never* marked with dashes. This is defined by legislation, specifically TSRGD 2016.

If it's a signalised crossing (pelican or puffin), dots may be used, but are not a legal requirement. These are also crossing=traffic_signals, not crossing=marked

If it's a zebra crossing, dots may be used in addition to the zebra markings.

If there is a double dashed line transverse road marking between a crossing over a side road and a main road, this is a give way marking (mapped as a separate highway=give_way node). It has nothing to do with the crossing, which is likely to be crossing=unmarked crossing:markings=no

The wiki may help you here crossing:markings=*

Why did you tag the obviously unmarked crossing node/12430797573 as a marked crossing, then add entirely fabricated tags about it being button operated and having tactile signals for the visually impaired?

Thanks for updating these.

Just one query - can you remember why iD suggested that you should change way/256560674 from highway=footway to the less specific highway=path?

@ChrissW-R1 you won't get a response from @gomedia91, as I discovered while trying to find out why they had mis-tagged almost every crossing=traffic_signals node in the Cardiff area (hopefully now fixed).

I would simply undelete the relation and check that it hasn't been broken in any other ways.

[Review requested]

Thanks for surveying and adding this. An alternative to mapping it as a highway=cycleway would be to use leisure=track + sport=bmx (or sport=cycling) and an appropriate value for mtb:scale=*. This should avoid potential problems of cycle and pedestrian routers trying to use it if mapped as a highway.

If the closed section of footway ( way/884710002 ) across this area has reopened and follows the same course, you could remove the access=no tag.

There's some documentation on the wiki which might be helpful:
leisure=track
sport=cycling
sport=bmx
mtb:scale=*

Some of these "buildings" were parked vehicles.

way/1329211667
way/1329211747
way/1329211710

Thanks for spotting and fixing this! They appear to have been added by a user using microsoft/BuildingFootprints as a source, who didn't make much of an effort to check what they added against aerial imagery.

It might reduce the risk of this being repeated if you could add the coach park as an area with amenity=parking + parking=surface + appropriate access tags (presumably private?).