You appear to have tagged sections of the High Street/Steyne Road roundabout 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.

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. It is disabled in the UK from StreetComplete v59.0 onwards.

Thanks for adding these crossings. In the UK, a crossing marked with dots and adjacent to a highway=traffic_signals node should be tagged as crossing=traffic_signals.

With appropriate tagging on these crossings, users of apps like StreetComplete will be able to check for accessibility features like sound and tactile signals.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for editing the map.

Usually addresses are stored in separate tags, which are easier for data consumers like routing software to process.

The person who initially mapped the buildings on the Newlands Estate put all the information into the name tag, which I have now "translated" into OSM tags. You didn't do anything wrong by following the existing mapping style with your edit.

I've also added some other information, like postcodes, to buildings and roads on the estate.

If you want to add more information to the map in your local area, the StreetComplete app is a great complement to the iD web editor which you used.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

Rather than adding the tag to Finsbury Street, this should really be mapped as a node (point) on the outline of the 20 Ropemaker Street building. You can connect it to Finsbury Street by adding a short length of service road.

There is a link to the wiki page for amenity=loading_dock below, but if you would like any help please feel free to ask.

amenity=loading%20dock

Access updated in changeset/156825989

For a bus station, you might want something more like:

vehicle=no + bus=designated

rather than psv=yes, as it's more specific and excludes taxi/PHV using non-UK specific routers.

The existing motor_vehicle=designated tag (not added by you) is almost certainly wrong and should be deleted. I think the person who added it mistakenly thought that it meant "for designated vehicles only", but what it actually means is "designated as a right of way for all motor vehicles".

I can't find any street-level imagery, but if the sign at the entrance from Station approach is no entry with an "except buses" plate, the above should work. If it's something different I'll try to help you to find the best tagging here.

I have also added a section to the Busmiles.uk page on the OSM wiki.
osm.wiki/Busmiles.uk#Tagging_service_roads_in_bus_stations

PRoW data and mapping progress for Eastry Rural is at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/dover/eastry-rural/

No, it's clearly designated as a public bridleway and was tagged as such. What you would like it to be is immaterial.

Please familiarise yourself with access rights on public rights of way in England and how they are tagged in OpenStreetMap before editing any more PRoWs.
osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging

I have reverted your edit and changed it from highway=path -> bridleway

The sidewalk:both=separate tag goes on the parent street, not on the sidewalk. Your tagging effectively meant that the separately mapped sidewalks had separate sidewalks on both sides. I've fixed your mistake.

If you persist in making bad edits in East London and do not engage with changeset comments, the matter will be escalated to DWG.

Please don't add tag for the router/renderer.

As someone who actually lives in East London and uses OSM-based pedestrian routing software, armchair mappers adding decorative sidewalks and pretend crossings is unhelpful.

Several of these crossings are only half crossings, with a lowered kerb and tactile paving (which you didn't add, despite it being obvious in the aerial imagery). The fictitious parts of the crossings have been deleted following a survey on 2024-09-18.

Mapping for the renderer/router is generally discouraged. Adding fictitious crossings which involve traversing an unmodified kerb and obstruction by parked cars are NOT helpful for real world pedestrian navigation.

It's in the wiki:
access= yes "The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way."
access=*#List_of_possible_values

The motor_vehicle=private tag which was there looks dubious to me.

I would suggest either access=destination (you can only use it to get there, but not use it as a through route/short cut) or access=permissive (no right of way, but nobody signed or physical restriction).

The bits of road behind ExCeL which are unadopted probably ought to have at least access=permissive + ownership=private

If there's a signed diversion of National Cycle Route 13 along Sandstone/Seagull while the dock side is closed in front of the ExCeL extension, they might need bicycle=permissive as well

Why do you believe that there is now a legal right of way (which is what access=yes means) over this section of the privately owned and maintained Seagull Lane? Have London Borough of Newham adopted the road(s)?

That's great, done. changeset/156723183

If you want to add other details to streets locally, like surfaces and cycle lanes, with less pain than the iD editor, it's worth taking at look at the StreetComplete app.

I can't find the actual traffic order or any recent imagery with an OSM-compatible licence, but if the scheme was implemented as proposed on the consultation you would need to do the following:

1) split Wheelers lane near its junction with Redehall Road
2) make the split segment one way by adding oneway=yes (you might need to reverse the direction of the segment)
3) if contraflow bicycle access is allowed, add oneway:bicycle=yes

If you wanted to upload street view imagery of all the highway changes made in this scheme, you could use the Mapillary mobile app.

Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. I only noticed it because someone keeps adding fantasy power line nearby.

Thanks for confirming - I've updated the speed limit. It may take a couple of weeks before it "works" on Plotaroute. I'll take a look at the entry restriction later.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding surface information to the road. That's useful information which some routing software will use.

I noticed that the road is tagged (not by you) with a maximum speed of 3 mph. Unless it's a privately owned road with a very low advisory limit, can I assume that this is a typo for 30 mph? This may be the reason some routing software could apply a high cost to this road and prefer an alternative.

Reverted in changeset/156673796

Are crossings like node/12156384359 really crossings in any meaningful sense, because the Bing imagery shows nothing: no lowered kerb, no tactile paving, etc.
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.540076%7E0.007217&lvl=22.0&mo=om.1&pi=-22.2&style=x&dir=60.8

If there are residential streets where separate sidewalks only "work" when fictitious crossings are mapped for the renderer/router, that is a good argument not to map them. For routing purposes, tagging with sidewalk=both and mapping only the real crossings as nodes should suffice.