Thanks! I had meant to go back and resolve that note ages ago.

In which case, it was correctly tagged as historic=cannon, which I have restored. It is not and never has been an installation artwork.

historic=cannon

Please do not tag for the renderer just because something is not currently rendered in the OSM Carto tiles.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

If you would like to suggest an appropriate rendering for historic=cannon objects, you could raise a new issue on the project at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues

Yes, they are. You could have added separate polygons for the bridge piers rather than removing building=* tags from buildings.

Tagging for the renderer is not a reason to delete an existing object along with its history.

Sorry, that's a ludicrous argument.

From the wiki: "The highway=residential tag is used on roads that provide access to, or within, residential areas but which are not normally used as through routes."

St Katharine's way does not pass through or abut a landuse=residential polygon. It's not a residential street.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for adding this public footpath.

If you're mapping other public rights of way in this area, you might find this tool useful:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/chelmsford/south-hanningfield/

Thanks! I usually do update the sidewalk tags to sidewalk:$side=separate when I come across them in the course of doing other edits. I wonder if it's the sort of think which would work as a Maproulette project?

While most instances of sidewalk=separate would probably be better as sidewalk:both=separate, I am a little dubious about doing this as an automated edit. It usually needs checking with aerial imagery.

Using sidewalk:both=separate on many streets with oneway=yes, particularly dual carriageways and links at complex junctions may be incorrect, as these are more likely to be sidewalk:left=separate + sidewalk:right=no

You appear to have tagged a section of Waterworks Roundabout 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.

addr:* tags updated in changeset/144397985

Reverted in changeset/144397714

If you don't like the tag, there's nothing to stop you creating a proposal to deprecate it.

St Katharine's Way restored to highway=unclassified in changeset/144396708#

Original version of "Girl with a dolphin" reinstated in changeset/144396518

The edits to Tower Bridge North and South Towers were reversed by @Cebderby in changeset/144380733

Whether or not a mapper based in Vietnam likes or dislikes the documented and correctly used tourism=attraction tag is irrelevant. Please revert and don't inflict your personal tastes on local OSM contributors.

What makes you think that St. Katharine's Way is a residential street?

Have you ever been there?

Why did you delete "Girl with a dolphin" and its associated history and recreate it as a new object?

The footway area which you deleted still exists, although there might be a justification to change it to area:highway=footway.

Please use meaningful changeset comments - "fix track" does not adequately describe what you did, or why you did it.

I'm pretty sure that the towers on Tower Bridge were still there - and still buildings, not just bridge piers - when I ran across it last night.

Hi, thanks for updating this.

addr:postcode was actually the correct tag for the postcode as part of an address, postal_code is generally used on streets (often as just the first half of the postcode).

Thanks - StreetComplete is generally a great tool and really helps to enrich and improve the map. It's just that one quest which tends to trip people up in the UK.