How does adding an unsigned and presumably non-existent weight limit "improve the street network for routing"?

What was your source for the 5 tonne weight limit? Very prominent signage would be expected for such a low weight limit, particularly for a bridge over such a minor watercourse on an A road.

In what way was adding an entirely fictitious weight limit an improvement?

As Tobias Zwick has said that he'd disable it for the UK if there's a consensus in favour of doing that from UK mappers, I really should start a poll and discussion in the newly revived UK forums.

Thanks. There are some users who use the presence of ad hoc signage about "pedestrian priority" as a justification to re tag cycleways as footways. As pedestrians already have priority on shared cycle tracks per Highway Code Rule H2, it does look like a thin pretext to de-emphasise some cycle routes on the default OSM-Carto rendering.

I somewhat disagree that a non-statutory sign about pedestrian priority justifies changing a highway=cycleway to footway on way/229192486.

Pedestrians have priority on ALL shared cycleways, per HIghway Code Rule H2 "Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks and to horse riders on bridleways."

Legally irrelevant paint on the tarmac shouldn't be a justification to hide part of Cycleway 27 in the OSM Carto rendering.

Thanks for updating this. Assuming that the path is soft mud, it might also be worth adding tracktype=grade5

tracktype=*

There's also been a little discussion of soft and boggy paths on the Community Forum

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/soft-and-boggy-paths/8429

Is there really an explicitly signed pedestrian prohibition on way/1156071336? If not, then there isn't a pedestrian prohibition.

I don't believe that there are any circumstances in which the Street Complete "are pedestrians prohibited" quest will ever result in good tagging in Greater London. Either it adds an explicit and technically correct foot=yes (but giving unhelpful hints to pedestrian routers) or a fictitious foot=no. All of London's real pedestrian prohibitions through tunnels, over flyovers and on motorway-style roads have been tagged for years.

Please don't add pedestrian prohibitions where none exist. If there is no traffic sign explicitly prohibiting pedestrians, there is no prohibition.

This StreetComplete task is best disabled in the UK, as it generally results in the addition of fictitious foot=no tags and unnecessary/unhelpful explicit foot=yes tags.

Non-existent prohibitions removed.

There is no explicitly signed pedestrian prohibition here, therefore no prohibition. Reverted in changeset/151210851

Thanks. Adding access=private is probably the correct tag in this situation, although if it's used for deliveries then access=destination might be more accurate.

This one is fine - there's no problem with adding a previously unmapped running track as a simple closed way.

Reverted.

Repaired in changeset/151141756

You haven't "changed the designation" here, you've deleted a running track correctly mapped as a multipolygon. I have reverted your changeset and updated the mapping of associated features.

You might find OpenStreetMap's documentation worth reading before you edit more running tracks.

sport=athletics

OpenStreetMap is a live public database, please don't use it for testing.

You may find these useful:
osm.wiki/Testing_changes_before_upload
osm.wiki/Sandbox_for_editing

Reverted in changeset/151140491

What was the source for this weight restriction?

Reverted. The features also exist on numerous sources of aerial imagery and other maps, from which you have no prospect whatsoever of having them removed.

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

Although the street signs presumably say "Mardleywood", it might be worth adding an alt_name tag with "Mardley Wood" so that it turns up in searches. The latter form is also in OS Open Names, which would probably need help from your council to fix.

Please don't add unsigned (and therefore non-existent, at least in the UK) foot=no restrictions.