You have also moved the tags of a hump on Crimscott Street to the entrance of Bridewain Street.

1) Has the speed hump on Crimscott Street been removed?

2) Has the row of concrete bollards acting as a modal filter on Bridewain Street been supplemented by a speed hump?

The ref:GB:tflcid=RWG079969 tag applies only to one surveyed feature in one location, which is clearly not on Bridewain Street.
https://cycleassetimages.data.tfl.gov.uk/RWG079969_1.jpg
https://cycleassetimages.data.tfl.gov.uk/RWG079969_2.jpg

(Review requested)

Although the web-based iD editor which you're using presents several access options as if they ought to be completed, a way (line) tagged as highway=footway implies foot=yes and (everything else)=no. You only really need to add access tags where they differ from the defaults, which in the UK are listed here:
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

Thanks! With all the 20mph zone boundary signs confirmed, I've added the speed limit tags for the whole zone in changeset/166465132

Has the car park in West Harrow Recreation Ground formerly(?) accessed from Wilson Gardens/Butler Road also been removed? You have deleted its access road in this changeset.

You seem to have dragged an artwork in Kensington Gardens, London, UK out of place in this changeset.

node/12110214885

With Eden Dock Bridge now open, should access=no be replaced with foot=permissive ?

Why replace direction=* (understood by all data consumers) with traffic_sign:direction=*, an iD-ism introduced in 2018?

traffic_sign=*

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Although adding bicycle=no on the N-S highway=footway does no harm, it doesn't actually do anything either as it's implcit.
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

For the E-W highway=cycleway, if cycling is not permitted, you should probably change the highway type. Looking at the Bing street side imagery it seems to be wide enough for service vehicles and has a removable bollard, so perhaps:
highway=pedestrian + vehicle=private

No problem, hopefully the above was helpful.

There is a reverter plugin which you can add to the JOSM editor you're using - see osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Reverter
I've reverted this one in changeset/166185155

(Review requested)

The deleted "pavement" was a separately mapped cycleway, originally added from DfT data in 2013.

In general, deleting another mapper's work should only really be done if the feature doesn't exist, or no longer exists. However, from the Bing aerial and street side imagery, it looks like the asphalt pavement on the W side was incorrectly added as a separate cycle track. This should have been the explicitly shared pavement/cycle track paved with red bricks on the E side. I would be inclined to map the E side as a separate way, as it joins Chadwick Road at a different point to the carriageway of George Raymond Road and is clearly a continuation of the shared cycle track through Pirelli Park.

If you don't want to do that, the segment of George Raymond Road between Chadwick Road and Pirelli Park should be tagged with:

cycleway:left=track
cycleway:left:oneway=no
cycleway:right=no
sidewalk:left:surface=paving_stones
sidewalk:right:surface=asphalt

https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=50.967263%7E-1.363876&lvl=20.3&mo=om.1&pi=-12.6&style=x&dir=10.3

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

If these are privately owned roads, you could also add the tag ownership=private. It's not essential and you can feel free to ignore this comment, but it would help to reinforce the reason for the permissive access and 25 mph speed limit.

ownership=private

Could you explain what this nationalist rant has to do with your deleting the node for a removed KX200 phone booth on Baizdon Road, Blackheath, London, UK?

No response to comment after 4 days, reverted in changeset/166139741

Removing office=company was quite correct, as it's not the office of a single company. Thanks for spotting and fixing that.

How does changing the (correct) building=commercial to building=yes relate to your changeset comment?

Where you added layer=1 in response to an issue flagged by the iD editor, this didn't solve the problem. It just hid it to make kit harder for someone else to find and resolve. This isn't entirely your fault, because the way the editor presents solutions to the problem of a building and highway crossing is very poorly designed.

It was already tagged as building=yes, so this may not be the cause of any 3D rendering problems you may be experiencing. What rendering software are you using?

Removing tourism=attraction won't help, I'm not sure why you removed this tag.

That segment isn't in a tunnel, either - perhaps cutting=yes could be added to the descending ramp (and as a ramp, it's incline=down).

cutting=*

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

A highway tagged as highway=cycleway is already mixed usage, as the default access assumption is foot=yes + bicycle=yes. People often add foot=yes, but unless foot=no is set it's shared usage. All this does is change the rendering to give the incorrect impression that it is a pedestrian-only route.

I'm not sure why you changed the surveyed (by me, in Jan 2023) value of surface=paving_stones to the imprecise value of paved. I'm also unsure why you removed oneway=no, or added layer=-1 when it is not beneath any other map features.

Finally, the name tag is for the actual name of a feature. Descriptive "names" should not be used, but there is a description tag you can use if you feel it is needed.

Thanks for updating this.

For closed businesses, etc. the usual way to mark them as such is to change name to old_name and use a lifecycle prefix on the feature's main tag. In this case, it might be:
old_name=Driving Test Centre
disused:office=government

Lifecycle prefixes are documented at
osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

I'm not sure, as I don't really know what people would consider the extent of the St Dunstan's area. If it was still(?) a ward or parish, I'd put it at the centroid of the polygon, but that doesn't apply here.

Incidentally, I see from the Historic England open data that you have an unmapped Grade II listed memorial in the NE corner of the cemetery - https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1271538

If you have a compatible phone and the inclination, you might find the StreetComplete and Mapillary apps useful. StreetComplete is great for surveying things like path surfaces and accessibility. Mapillary lets you upload georeferenced photographs to use while editing (and makes them available to other mappers).