Also, highway=living_street in the UK only applies when explicitly signed as a "Home Zone". This is extremely unlikely to be the case on a non-residential street in a city centre and certainly isn't the case here.

osm.wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#881

Air Street isn't signed as a "Home Zone", so it's not a highway=living_street

osm.wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#881

I'm not entirely convinced that a single crossing island justifies the creation of an 80 metre stretch of pretend dual carriageway.

(Review requested)

That looks fine, thanks for adding it to OSM.

Thanks - and happy mapping!

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

When a road sign says "private road", this means that it is an unadopted, privately owned road, not that access is generally forbidden. For an un-gated privately owned road, the tagging you probably want is:

ownership=private
access=destination

Using access=destination tells routing software that it can be reached for deliveries, taxis, visitors, etc. but that there's no legal right of way and it's not a through route.

If a road is gated and visitors can only reach the gate without explicit permission (and someone opening the gate), then the gate and everything behind it can be tagged as access=private.

ownership=private
access=destination

With reference to delivery and destination, the two most common permitted plates under the diagram 622.1A sign are "Except for loading" and "Except for access". As OSM has distinct access tag values where loading -> delivery and access -> destination, it does not seem unreasonable to expect the exception to be tagged *as signed*. It doesn't matter whether any current data consumes differentiate, because the law in the UK *does*. The delivery and destination values are similar, but not synonyms and should not be used interchangeably.

Replied at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/optimoroute-organised-editing-activity-in-the-uk-truck-hgv-access/129894/6

* junction with Freshwater Road, not Green Lane

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

While I understand and sympathise with your reasoning, the problem with just deleting an object like this is that people will see it on aerial imagery and re-add.

I'm not sure what other tags should be added to capture the hazards present and so that data consumers are aware of them, but you could try asking at https://community.openstreetmap.org/

If the path is actually fenced off, then you could map the fence as a barrier=fence line and add access=no to any sections of path behind the fence.

Please also see osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

I also frequently add bicycle=yes (and foot=yes where there aren't separately mapped sidewalks) on London's "trunk" roads. I'd be happier if some routers actually paid more attention to the other tags, particularly low maxspeed=* values and the absence of expressway=*/motorroad=*, but until then...

On public bridleways, please do add tags! Generally they should have designation=public_bridleway + horse=designated + bicycle=designated + foot=designated. You're probably already aware of them, but Robert Whittaker's PRoW resources can be very helpful.
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/

Updated to the actual, signed, restriction on Ashford Road at its junction with Scotforth Road.

A 3.5m width restriction on a 2 lane slip road from a trunk road to a primary road roundabout? Do you have a link to street side imagery showing the TSRGD diagram 629A sign?

Why have you replaced correct tagging with a non-existent maximum actual weight restriction?

The signs on Bulk Road at its junction with Catton Road are TSRGD diagram 622.1A (Goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross weight indicated prohibited), with an "Except loading" plate. This should be tagged as:
maxweightrating:hgv=7.5
maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=none @ delivery

It does not help data consumers to add an incorrect maxweight=* tag, or to conflate exceptions for delivery (loading) and destination (access).

Who, or what, is #OptimoRoute? If this is an organised edit on behalf of a company, there are additional guidelines to follow:
osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Guidelines

It's very unlikely that the restriction here is maxweight=*, unless it's for a weak bridge or weak road and had traffic signs which are pre-1994.

As this changeset and others have a comment about truck restrictions, the tagging you need is almost certainly maxweightrating:hgv=* + maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=*

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/maxweight-meaning-and-maxweightrating/132190/9

Looking at wandrer.earth's rules, the highway types mentioned in my first paragraph (primary, secondary, tertiary, unclassified, residential) aren't in their list of types which require an explicit bicycle=yes|designated tag:
"If they don't have an allowed bicycle tag, ways with the following highway tags are removed: motorway, motorway_link, steps, stairs, escalator, elevator, construction, proposed, demolished, escape, bus_guideway, sidewalk, crossing, bus_stop, traffic_signals, stop, give_way, milestone, platform, speed_camera, elevator, raceway, rest_area, traffic_island, services, yes, no, drain, street_lamp, razed, corridor, busway, via_ferrata"

While it does no harm to add bicycle=yes to the primary, secondary and tertiary roads in this changeset, if wandrer.earth excluded those roads the problem may lie elsewhere.

I won't remove the tags, although there's no guarantee that someone else won't decide that they're redundant in the future.

Is there a sign explicitly referring to PSVs, as psv=yes seems unlikely? It's not a synonym for bus=yes or bus=yes + taxi=yes.

Why do you think this is an error? Has Hutfield Link now been closed to buses and the bus stops suspended? If not, OSM-based routing for buses will not work through the lift gates.

Thanks for adding this footpath.

If you're trying to improve the mapping of public rights of way in your area, you might find this resource useful:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/swale/swale-rural/