Thanks for spotting and updating this from highway=path to highway=bridleway. It was already tagged with designation=public_bridleway, so the access tags really should be horse=designated + bicycle=designated + foot=designated.

Although the iD editor you're using unhelpfully presents all the access tags as if they ought to be completed, access=no is rarely correct or helpful on a bridleway, cycleway, or footway.

There's a bit more information on PRoW tagging here:
osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I have re-tagged this as amenity=parking_space and added a little more detail to the surroundings.

amenity=parking_space

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Just adding access=private is sufficient to mark a track as private for all transport modes, although the iD editor you're using does make it look like the other fields ough to be completed.

The name tag is for the actual name of a feature, not a description like "Private Track" or "Public Footpath".

You're absolutely right, I'm sorry! Serves me right for posting before the first coffee of the day took effect.

Would you mind changing these to addr:city=London + addr:suburb=Brentford, as Brentford is not a post town and is an optional part of the address? Thanks.

osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom

Are you sure there was a 12t weight limit over Lillie Bridge back in 2015? The current 18t mgw limit seems quite recent.

How does adding an unsigned and presumably fictitious weight restriction "improving" [the] street network for routing?

Unfortunately, you have changed the name tag of objects, including some shops, to "Topsfield Parade".

I think that what you probably want here is the addr:substreet tag for individual objects.
osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom#addr:substreet

You could also split the landuse=retail polygon and set the name tag on that to Topsfield Parade, which would render on the map (most addr:* tags don't, apart from housenumber and housename).

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.