We also have a node called HOME which is both a historic=castle and an amenity=shelter. One for the local mapping community, but it looks a little improbable to me.

node/11126339605

Many thanks for adding these.

For public rights of way, you might find these pages useful for tagging suggestions and designation information.

osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging

https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/swale/swale-rural/

There wasn't a one way restriction in the first place, as two way traffic is the default on roads. Adding oneway=no is harmless, but it's generally redundant and has no effect. There are times when it's worth using, which are covered in the wiki article.

oneway=*

Reverted in changeset/139891708

Reverted in changeset/139891708

Reverted in changeset/139891708

Reverted in changeset/139891708

Reverted in changeset/139891708

Reverted in changeset/139891708

Changesets 139884646, 139884573, 139884564, 139884535, 139884500, 139884456

One inside Homebase? It's more original vandalism than your imaginary apartments on a railway line, I suppose.

You'd be amazed how many apartments there aren't on the Great Eastern Mainline.

You'd be amazed how many apartments there aren't on the Great Eastern Mainline.

More vandalism.

An imaginary apartment.

The real Cambridge Central Mosque is way/674380818

This is just vandalism.

I'll have a look to see if I can find out why it's trying to do that, but it might not be until Monday.

I did a quick test using the bicycle routing you on the OpenStreetMap website (right-click and select route to/from here), from the Green Man to Maryland Point. GraphHopper and Valhalla use the road as expected. OSRM does the same, apart from an unexpected detour around the back of Harrow Green.

I'm not sure how to revert a changeset in the iD editor you're using, so ,I've done it using JOSM.
changeset/139756308

Also, why routing service are you using? A cycle router should not attempt to send a bicycle along a highway=footway unless it also has bicycle=yes tag. Adding bicycle=no to a footway is often redundant, although it can be useful when there's an explicitly signed prohibition.

As it's an advisory lane which is part of the main carriageway, it's already tagged there, e.g.
cycleway:both=lane
cycleway:both:lane=advisory

Cycle lanes aren't rendered on the default map style (OSM Carto), but they are on CycleOSM, OpenCycleMap, etc.

I would suggest reverting your edit, as there isn't a separate cycle track along most of the length of Leytonstone Road.

Documentation on cycle lane tagging is linked below.
cycleway=lane
cycleway:lane=*