Many thanks for adding these. I find these very useful for planning running and walking routes.

When you add separate sidewalks, would you mind updating the sidewalk tagging on the parent street? It potentially gives a hint to routing software and also makes it easier to query OSM for the extent of sidewalk mapping.

sidewalk=*#Separately_mapped_sidewalks

I've updated the tagging for these new sidewalks in
changeset/150203590

Many thanks for the confirmation and for your quick reply.

I've added a some other tags to the Turnford - Hoddesdon section: dual_carriageway=yes + sidewalk=no + cycleway:left=no, which should also give useful hints to routing software.

Is this an explicitly signed pedestrian prohibition?

If the road isn't a motorway and there are no TSRGD diagram 625.1 signs (link below), there probably isn't a prohibition.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made#tgp1-tbl1-tbd1-tr22

No, it wasn't. It has been correctly tagged as highway=cycleway since it was first mapped in June 2011. I added the segregated=yes tag in October 2018. A StreetComplete user surveyed it in June 2021 and added the tags for the different surfaces.

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/116909607

You've added the access tag bicycle=designated and changed foot=yes -> designated. That isn't incorrect, but it doesn't correct any mapping error, real or imagined. The effect of this edit on OSM-based routing software is nil, but it's harmless.

That's probably why the sidewalks were already correctly mapped as highway=footway, which implies bicycle=no. Adding bicycle=dismount is redundant, but harmless.

This edit will have no influence whatsoever on any routing software. If you see a delivery cyclist on the sidewalk, you may have to consider the possibility that they are acting illegally for a reason which has nothing to do with access tagging in OpenStreetMap.

At least this is a case in which HC Rule 64 actually does apply.

I've reverted your vandalism of the shared cycle and foot path between the A13/C3 and Lower Lea Crossing for the following reasons:

1) This is not a pavement/sidewalk, so a spurious justification based on quoting Highway Code Rule 64 without reading or understanding s. 72 Highway Act 1835 fails.

2) The North end of the path has a TSRGD diagram 956 sign (shared cycle and foot path). This is badly faded and possibly vandalised, however this does not revoke the explicit authorisation of cycling here. There is also a fingerpost for pedestrians and cyclists toward East India Dock Basin. Photographs linked in note #4202439

2) At the Southern end, the crossings over the carriageways of Lower Lea Crossing are toucan crossings, not pelican crossings. They are explicitly for both cyclists and pedestrians. If cycling were prohibited along the West side of Bow Creek, this would not be the case.

3) Fingerposts for pedestrians do not convey any implicit prohibition for cycling, they are purely informational.

This will also be referred to DWG.

The set of people who don't understand the Highway Code includes those who use Highway Code Rule 64 as a spurious justification for asserting the existence of a prohibition of cycling on anything other than pavements/sidewalks.

Although it may not be really usable, it's a public bridleway and needs to remain tagged as highway=bridleway.

I have reinstated this and added obstacle=vegetation to reflect the information in the description tag.
obstacle=*

Your edit removed the tag boundary=administrative from the administrative boundary of Reading Borough Council (already reinstated by another user). What were you trying to do here?

Yes, that's what the segregated=yes tag means. That's why I added it in October 2018.

segregated=yes

None of the objects edited in this changeset are footways in the legal sense, so Highway Code Rule 64 and s. 72 Highway Act 1835 are entirely irrelevant here.

In OSM in the UK, highway=footway already implies bicycle=no, so adding bicycle=dismount has no effect on routing,

None of the objects edited in this changeset are footways in the legal sense, so Highway Code Rule 64 and s. 72 Highway Act 1835 are entirely irrelevant here.

As far as I know, none of these streets are maintainable at public expense, so the degree and modes of permissive access are at the discretion of the landowner. I would rather see a definitive statement on that access from someone with authority to make it.

If you're adding residential gardens, they might be better tagged as leisure=garden + garden:type=residential than landuse=grass.

garden:type=residential

These were already mapped as highway=footway, which is implicitly bicycle=no. Adding bicycle=dismount will have no effect on OSM-based routers, which weren't likely to be sending bicycles along these paths anyway.

It can be helpful to tag footways as bicycle=no where it is explicitly signed with TSRGD diagram 951 signs (Riding of pedal cycles prohibited). In these cases, the signs can also be added as a node on the way nearest to the sign's physical location, tagged as traffic_sign=GB:951 + bicycle=no

You may find this useful:
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

I don't know what you were trying to do here, but I'd be fairly surprised if the service roads in Crystal Palace Park had suddenly taken wild zig-zags all over the place. Please be more careful in future.

Reverted in changeset/149975798

As far as I can tell from Bing aerial imagery, the gate still exists.

The problem here is the separate sidewalks added by @alisonlung. They were added by a user with a task manager determined to "complete" sidewalks in a map square. Unfortunately, they made no effort whatsoever to connect the sidewalks via crossings or do anything else beneficial for routing. I'd be inclined to delete the sidewalks and reinstate the gate.

I see that you have added informal=yes to this path, implying that it is an unmaintained desire line. However it has a name and appears from aerial imagery to be maintained.

Also, changing highway=bridleway|cycleway|footway to highway=path may not be entirely helpful to renderers or routers.

Thanks for adding these. When you connect them with pedestrian crossings, you may find this useful:
osm.wiki/Guidelines_for_pedestrian_navigation

You deleted several streets in your edit. This has been reverted.

I am not convinced that a "no left turn, except HGVs" restriction ever existed, not least because of the disruption to the 97 bus route this would have caused. There is certainly no evidence for it now and the relation has been deleted in changeset/149808236