Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

While it may be frustrating when people trespass, the best way to deal with this in OSM is to set the correct access tags, in this case access=private, to the path. The problem with deleting existing features is that they tend to get re-added, without any access restrictions, causing the problem to recur.

Many maps show private paths, tracks and roads, including Ordnance Survey and Google. These maps may not make the fact that it is private explicit, but OSM does.

There is more detailed information on the OSM Wiki here
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

I have reinstated the path and made it private in changeset/163049053

(Review requested) You have just added SEO spam into a changeset comment and inserted an unrelated node into a public transport route relation. Reverted.

The one-way sections are egregious examples of mapping non-existent dual carriageways for the renderer by a stunningly incompetent "mapper". They'll be gone shortly.

@Firefishy had it been the unverifiable office of an online business, I would have just reverted. However, whether I approve of their business methods or not, it is a verifiable shop which can be visited and as such still belongs in OSM. Bing street side imagery shows a travel agent at that location, with a different name but the same phone number on the sign.

Obviously, I flagged the account to DWG for spam. The shop deserves to be on OSM, the account responsible doesn't.

If you split a road around an island, you need to add oneway=yes to the new segments. You also need to ensure that the direction in which the way is drawn is correct (the iD editor has a reverse function).

Although this is not the case here, you also need to ensure that any other tags relating to lanes, sidewalks, cycleways, parking and verges are updated to reflect the newly split carriageway's features.

Tags added in changeset/163011938

Tagging for the renderer isn't "fixing" anything, particularly when you don't update the affected tags correctly. If there isn't physical separation between lanes in the real world, they shouldn't be mapped as separate ways in OSM.

I'm pretty sure I knew what I was doing when I remodeled this junction and do not appreciate having my work undone just to make it look prettier in OSM Carto.

Reverted in changeset/163009296

Reverted in changeset/163009296

No it isn't. Reverted in order to repair the dragged node in changeset/163008425

Reverted in changeset/163008253

Reverted in changeset/163008253

Reverted in changeset/163008253

PS Your business is now mapped as node/2091318064 (merged with the node for the previous occupier of no. 68/68a).

Thank you for adding your business to OpenStreetMap, which I have moved to the correct location on the corner of George Lane and Pulteney Road.

You may wish to reconsider opening_hours=24/7 unless your premises really are open to walk-in customers at all times. Obviously your website is always open, but that isn't useful information on a map.

Your SEO spam in the changeset comment is somewhat irritating, however renaming a section of George Lane and adding your business to the 55 bus route relation were nothing short of vandalism. This has been reverted.

Thank you!

If you need any help with future roadworks, please ask on the community forum.

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect verifiable legal restrictions, which in the UK for foot=no requires a traffic order and a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg ). There is no such thing as a "cars only restriction".

Pedestrians in the UK use highways by absolute right unless explicitly prohibited.

Reverted in changeset/163003949

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect verifiable legal restrictions, which in the UK for foot=no requires a traffic order and a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg ). There is no such thing as a "cars only restriction".

Pedestrians in the UK use highways by absolute right unless explicitly prohibited.

Reverted in changeset/163003949

Are you sure that you are not-conflating private ownership with a legal access prohibition for pedestrians here?

It is very unlikely that Strand Lane is "cars only" as there is no such restriction in the UK. It was already tagged motor_vehicle=private by another mapper.

As I have not been to Strand Lane since I was a student at KCL 30 years ago, I have added a note for someone to check this - note/4643776

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect legal restrictions, not matters of opinion.

Although walking along Blackfriars Underpass may not seem an attractive proposition, there are no signs explicitly prohibiting it and therefore no prohibition. Pedestrians are explicitly prohibited by signs at both ends of the Upper Thames Street tunnels, but not elsewhere on the A3211.

Reverted in changeset/163003434

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect verifiable legal restrictions, which in the UK for foot=no requires a traffic order and a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg ). There is no such thing as a "cars only restriction".

Pedestrians in the UK use highways by absolute right unless explicitly prohibited.

Reverted in changeset/163003949

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect verifiable legal restrictions, which in the UK for foot=no requires a traffic order and a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg ). There is no such thing as a "cars only restriction".

Pedestrians in the UK use highways by absolute right unless explicitly prohibited.

Reverted in changeset/163003949