Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

You asked for a review of your edit and it's fine, so you can safely ignore the suggestions below.

It might be better to map it as highway=footway rather than highway=path, as that is treated as access for foot only.

If the loop has been surfaced with gravel, rather than gravel exposed by it being eroded as a desire line, informal=yes may not apply.

There are links to the documentation below.
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom
informal=yes

If you have deleted features which actually exist, but which you want to censor from the map, please don't.

The following page puts the case in some detail:
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

I am absolutely sure that there are not German traffic signs (DE:437) on three roads in North Acton? The road names may be signed, but road name signs in the UK are not standard traffic signs prescribed by TSRGD (The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016).

If no street name sign is present, you could use name:signed=no
name:signed=no

Tags removed in changeset/149553238

Which websites? Do they have licenses compatible with OpenStreetMap?

Thanks for adding the clinic, but please supply a meaningful changeset comment rather than "jhkf,.msnmdc".

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

You may consider it unnecessary, but another mapper took the time to map that detail. Unless the feature doesn't exist, please revert your changeset.

Thanks for adding this.

Thanks for updating these. You might find this resource helpful for public rights of way around you.
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/bucks/-/stoke-poges/

Thanks for updating this. You could also add ownership=private to further clarify the situation.

ownership=*

Thanks for updating this. However, access=private may be more appropriate here than access=permit. The permit value is defined as:

"Open only to people who have obtained a permit granting them access, but permit is ordinarily granted. If permit is hard to obtain, then it is typically access=private."

access=*

Thanks for adding this. I've tweaked a couple of the tags to fit OSM conventions.

If the gate is still there and normally closed/locked, bicycle=yes (and the foot=yes which was already present) would be incorrect as there are separately mapped cycle bypasses.

The traffic order for the closure here is at https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56291-482

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for adding these paths.

If it is of any interest or use to you, there is a resource with additional information on public rights of way (PRoW) in this area.
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/castle-point/canvey/

You inadvertently added highway=footway to the outer member of the large natural=wood multipolygon. Fixed in changeset/148751818

You appear to have tagged the part of Comet Way approaching The Airfield Roundabout from the SW as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence 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 and have therefore reverted your edit in changeset/148673496

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 the part of York Gate between the carriageways of Marylebone Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence 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 and have therefore reverted your edit in changeset/148672890

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.

Where you have used foot=use_sidepath on this cycleway, do you mean that this is a segregated cycle path (i.e. foot=yes + segregated=yes)?

way/247037559

The foot=use_sidepath tag does not apply in the UK. If there's an explicit signed prohibition of pedestrians (and there isn't here, as it's very rare for roads which have a sidewalk), then the road would be foot=no.

Tag removed in changeset/148535804

A yellow non-statutory sign saying that "pedestrians do not have priority" does not imply anything remotely like a prohibition of pedestrians. It suggests an attitude by a landowner to pedestrians which is hardly in the spirit of the Highway Code, but it's not a prohibition.

It's not just my feeling about access tags. The second paragraph of the wiki page for access=* says "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if signage is generally ignored."

There's currently a discussion of this in the Talk-GB mailing list, starting at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2024-March/031184.html

What was your source for the pedestrian prohibitions on H3 and other roads? Are these legal restrictions explicitly signed with a "pedestrians prohibited" traffic sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1) and a traffic order, or a feeling that pedestrians probably shouldn't use these roads (even though they usually have verges)?