You appear to have tagged two section of the A650 as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

Thanks!

Thanks for adding these. They really help for pedestrian routing and make it easier to add accessibility features like tactile paving and kerb heights with tools like StreetComplete.

It's not absolutely necessary for pedestrian routing, but you can add footway=sidewalk to pavements and footway=crossing to the parts of footways which cross roads (you may need to split them at the kerb line).

Adding surface=* and lit=* may be useful for routing.

You can also update the sidewalk tagging on the road, e.g. sidewalk:both=separate where both are mapped separately.

Please don't add foot=no to the road unless there is a real and (in the UK) explicitly signed prohibition. Routers may use sidewalk:*=separate as a hint to avoid the road.

Thanks!

The "reasoning" was dubious, by a user who had not bothered to read either the original mapper's changeset comments or the wiki for landuse=grass. I would have marked the changeset as bad in OSMCha had you not already marked it as a good.

Yes, please revert.

The grass verges still exist, or are at least still visible in Bing aerial and street side imagery. Whether or not you or I feel that that another users's micromapping is "unnecessary" or or not is immaterial.

The landuse=grass polygons were mapped in line with the wiki: "A tag for a smaller areas of mown and managed grass for example in the middle of a roundabout, verges beside a road or in the middle of a dual carriageway."
landuse=grass

In any case, Pokémon Go users used to cheat by adding fictitious leisure=park polygons, a tactic which a friend who plays the game informs me has not worked for several years. I have never heard of landuse=grass being abused in this way and feel that it is unlikely that Niantic would have wanted to encourage players to wander into the middle of traffic islands and dual carriageways.

Verges reinstated in changeset/143527343

The landuse=grass polygons were probably added because they exist. It may be micromapped more than you might like, but unless they've been removed from reality there's no compelling reason to remove them from the map.

According to a friend who plays Pokémon Go, adding leisure=park (which was the most common way for players to cheat) and similar objects no longer works and hasn't done for some time.

Updated in changeset/143525165

Don't worry, that quest seems to catch a lot of people out and possibly only in a UK context.

Thanks for updating this, I'd meant to do it ages ago.

Is this node potentially a duplicate of the adjacent building?
way/226271440

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

The building=house polygons should only represent the geometry of the buildings, not the surrounding land within the property boundary. You can add walls, fences and hedges along the boundary where these are present.

If you would like any help with this, please feel free to ask.

Why change landuse=grass areas to landuse=meadow when the areas are clearly not used in a way which resembles a meadow, i.e. for hay or grazing?

The wiki description for landuse=grass suggests that these areas were already tagged correctly: "A tag for a smaller areas of mown and managed grass for example in the middle of a roundabout, verges beside a road or in the middle of a dual carriageway."

landuse=grass
landuse=meadow

Np problem, and thanks. It's one which seems to catch a lot of people out.

Has the School Streets order affecting Pears Road near its junction with Inwood Road now been revoked?

I can't find anything more recent than The London Borough Of Hounslow (School Streets) Order 2021 and The London Borough Of Hounslow (School Streets) (Amendment No. 1) Order 2022.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3920374
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4207112

LB Hounslow's website also lists this as a current and permanent scheme.
https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20053/transport/2157/school_streets/3

Thanks for updating this, but please note that you don't need to add access=no to a highway=footway. The default access already excludes all transport modes except pedestrian, so all adding access=no does is to cause the default OSM Carto map tiles to render it in grey instead of red.

Unfortunately, the iD editor presents a selection of access rules which are generally irrelevant to footways.

Removed foot=no in changeset/143408514

Removed foot=no restrictions in changeset/143408222

You appear to have tagged a section of Canterbury Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

You appear to have tagged sections of Daresbury Expressway and Chester Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

You appear to have tagged sections of Ordsall Lane and Hampson Street as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.