Thanks for confirming.

Iron Square was originally tagged (not by you) as access=private, which would have been correct during construction.

I've added ownership=private, but if it isn't gated it should probably be access=destination so that it's reachable by routing software.

Thanks for updating this.

Although the restaurant has closed, the building will still be there.

Rather than deleting a closed business, an alternative is to change the name tag to old_name, use a lifecycle prefix on the "main" tag (in this case amenity=restaurant) and remove the tags which applied only to the closed business. You could also add a check_date tag if appropriate.

The advantages of doing this are that the history of the object is preserved and users of apps like StreetComplete will be prompted to check if there is a new business operating there.

I've undeleted the building and updated the tags in way/487028114

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
check_date=*

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your business.

There are a couple of things you might want to change:

1) position - you are unlikely to be in the middle of the junction of Balloch Road/Ardoch Road and POIs which are "obviously" in the wrong place might get deleted by other mappers

2) business type - data consumers will probably process office=fence_supply_shop as if it were office=yes. If it's your office location, then office=company might be the best fit. If it's the location of a physical shop which customers can visit, you may want to add a shop tag.
office=*
shop=*#Do-it-yourself,_household,_building_materials,_gardening

I've made a couple of minor tweaks to tags so that they will be parsed correctly by data consumers.

Based on a complete misunderstanding of what the tags mean.

Could this do with foot=permissive as well, assuming that it's private land?

Thanks for adding these, but please bear in mind a couple of things, which are also in the MapWithAI instructions for this task:

1) "Once you have mapped a section of sidewalk, you should add a tag to the adjacent road to inform OpenStreetMap whether a sidewalk exists next to that road and which sides it is on. You can do that by applying one of the following sidewalk:both=separate, sidewalk:left=separate, sidewalk:right=separate to the adjacent road. If no sidewalk exists, you can use sidewalk=no."

2) Please don't change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked, as that removed information useful to pedestrian routers. By all means add crossing:markings=dots and crossing:signals=yes. If you see a crossing in the UK marked with dots and there's a solid white stop line adjacent to it, it's very, very unlikely that it is anything other than crossing=traffic_signals + crossing:markings=dots + crossing:signals=yes.

Although the iD editor and derivatives like Rapid suggest it, there's no point adding crossing:markings=yes, as this rather pointlessly tells data consumers that "this marked crossing is marked".

I've fixed the tagging errors with crossings and added sidewalk tags to the parent roads in changeset/156987362

Reverted.

Vandalism reverted in changeset/156980950

osm.org/user_blocks/16700

You described it as an error in your changeset comment, which it clearly wasn't. Did you at least flag the account?

It wasn't an "error", it was vandalism. Reported to DWG.

Grow up.

Not so much unmarked, as entirely fictitious and unhelpful to pedestrian routing in some cases.

Thanks!

For an overgrown path, it might be worth adding an obstacle=vegetation tag obstacle=*

@jpennycook thanks for spotting that! I've updated the access tags and added the signage in changeset/156953892

Thanks for spotting that!

When a road has separately mapped cycleways or sidewalks, it's better to replace (in this case) cycleway:right=track with cycleway:right=separate.

The mapper who originally added the separate cycle track should have updated the tagging on Pevensey Road, Dittons Road and Station Road at the same time. I've updated it.

cycleway=separate

Looking at the traffic orders in The Gazette, there's an exemption for "maintenance, refuse and other essential vehicles", so it should probably be:
1) vehicle=private + bus=designated + bicycle=designated
2) access=private + bus=designated + bicycle=designated

I suspect the "no through route" signs are intended to stop council vehicles using the road as a short cut, rather than being directed at the general public.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2769434

The signage here is a little inconsistent, but that looks OK to me.

Assuming the available imagery is still current:

1) Entering from Boundary Lane: no entry sign with "except buses and cycles" on the left and "no through route except for buses and cycles on the right". A no entry sign should be interpreted as vehicle=no, with bus=designated + bicycle=designated exceptions. "No through route" would usually mean access=destination, but that doesn't really make sense with a no entry sign and the plate on the right isn't an authorised variant. Bing street side imagery of uncertain date.
https://www.bing.com/maps/?toWww=1&redig=5D8227B414074D5485818F590B616E23&cp=51.52195%7E0.039991&lvl=19.1&mo=om.1&pi=-19&style=x&dir=219.5

2) Exiting toward Boundary Lane: bus and cycle only blue sign, with a separate white "no through route except for buses and cycles" sign before it. I think the white sign can be ignored for practical purposes, so it should probably be access=no + bus=designated + bicycle=designated here. If there weren't' separately mapped sidewalks here, foot=yes might be needed. Mapillary imagery from Jan 2024.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=390804306768746