It's only worth mapping separate sidewalks if they actually connect for routing purposes, generally at crossings. They're just decorative otherwise.

Footways removed in changeset/149751509

Thanks - I spotted that when I opened it in Vespucci. Should be fixed in #149645891

Fixed in changeset/149601330

Please could you add crossing ways as footway=crossing, not footway=sidewalk. Thanks.
footway=crossing

It also helps if the crossing node is actually added where the crossing intersects the road being crossed.

Fixed in changeset/149601014

Please add crossings with signals as crossing=traffic_signals, not crossing=marked. It's also generally considered helpful if you put the nodes the correct side of the highway=traffic_signals node.

Cleaned up in changeset/149589908

Please could you add crossing ways as footway=crossing, not footway=sidewalk. Thanks.

footway=crossing

Is there any particular reason why you have made Kotree Way unreachable from St James's Road?

The Bing street side imagery (which may be out of date) appears to show a connection to St James's Road at the end of the railings, next to the Esmeralda Road bus stop.

Having the crossing tags on a footway which is not connected to anything else may not be quite as helpful as tagging the crossing node itself.

Tags moved to crossing node in changeset/149584746

Tidied up in changeset/149584481

If you're adding separate sidewalks, please check and update the sidewalk=* tags on the parent streets.

Updated for this in changeset/149583280

I'm pretty sure I mapped this correctly when I surveyed it in real life.

See crossing:markings=*#Examples

Reverted in /changesets/149578731

Please don't change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked

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/