Thanks for updating this and clearing my notes around the castle.

The Automated Edits Code of Conduct may disagree with you here.
osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

"This policy also applies to substantial changes made using 'find and replace' or similar functions within standard editors such as JOSM."

"Even if you are going to change tagging of a large number of objects systematically and don't think that it is an automated edit which falls under this code of conduct, it is still a good idea to discuss your changes in advance."

Also, if you're just reducing the node count of objects, what is the reason for the ways which have been deleted and created in this changeset?

The geographical extent of this changeset makes it impossible to review the changes with QA tools like OsmCha.

When and where was this automated edit discussed?

I think you may have conflated the physical address of One American Acre with the address of its operator.

Is that address really recognised by USPS, for that specific location rather than a government office in DC? If it is, there may be a way to record it, but addr:* ought to be of some practical use in locating the object.

1) Please don't delete and replace OSM objects, as this loses the editing history.
osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

2) The layer=* tag probably does not mean what you think it does. High Street

3) High Street's pedestrianised areas have signs prohibiting all vehicles (which includes bicycles) and additional signs explicitly and redundantly prohibiting bicycles. It CANNOT be a highway=cycleway. It's a pedestrianised street, which is literally what highway=pedestrian is for (as opposed to mis-tagging pavement/sidewalk areas so that they render on the map). This was explained in the comment I made on your earlier changeset:
changeset/157173227

The warning in iD about a highway crossing a railway didn't mean "just add a non-existent level crossing to make the warning go away". It was generated because the part of the footway you added over the bridge on Railway Street needs to be tagged as a bridge, like the adjacent highway, i.e. layer=1 + bridge=yes

No, it was correctly mapped by someone who had actually read the wiki:

"Roads are not to be mapped as dual carriageways if the two directions are only separated
* by paint. This includes single or multiple painted centre lines[1], hatched areas, channelized turn lanes, two-way turn lanes,
* by flush medians,
* or by any other means that is not a physical barrier to vehicles."

osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

You didn't even tag the pretend separate carriageways as oneway=yes

Please stop tagging for the renderer, you're breaking things which you have not taken the trouble to understand.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Damn, sorry I missed that. Is there any chance you could edit the offending section of road so that it's fixed in tonights planet.osm extracts? I won't have access to a decent editor until tomorrow afternoon.

* times in the above tagging examples should of course be 17:30, not 19:30

None of those roads would ordinarily be tagged as highway=cycleway. They are pedestrianised streets, which is exactly what a highway=pedestrian way is intended to represent.

I concede that access on the section of High Street between Skinner Street was already poorly tagged in respect of access, but this is not an improvement.

Assuming that the signage in the Bing street side imagery is still current:

East of the junction with Skinner Street:
1) There is a TSRGD diagram 618.3B sign, "Pedestrian zone, no vehicles, except for loading midnight-10.30am 5.30pm-midnight, parking restricted at any time"
2) There is a TSRGD diagram 951 sign "Riding of pedal cycles prohibited" (arguably redundant redundant, as bicycles are vehicles and already prohibited by the first sign).
3) There is a TSRGD diagram 952 sign "One-way traffic"

West of the junction with King Street:
4) There is a TSRGD diagram 616 "no entry sign"
5) There is another 951 "Riding of pedal cycles prohibited"

The effect of this is that the correct tagging on that part of High Street should include:

oneway=yes
vehicle=no
vehicle:conditional=delivery @ (19:30-00:00;00:00-10:30)
parking:both=no
parking:right:restriction:conditional=loading_only @ (19:30-00:00;00:00-10:30)

https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.387485%7E0.544781&lvl=20.3&mo=om.1&pi=7.2&style=x&dir=302.4
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.386826%7E0.54837&lvl=20.3&mo=om.1&pi=3.2&style=x&dir=268.1

I haven't reverted your changeset, as it is possible that access provisions have changed since the imagery was collected. Please can you confirm whether or not this is the case?

Reverted in changeset/157156679

This and subsequent edits to the junction of High Street and Queens Avenue deleted traffic calming information and mapped a lane without physical separation as a separate way.

Reverted in changeset/157156679

Reverted in changeset/157156679

Reverted in changeset/157156679

Reverted in changeset/157156197

Reverted in changeset/157156102

Reverted in changeset/157156042

For areas like this, an alternative is to map the area as area:highway=footway together with a linear highway=footway through the centre. Although pedestrian areas are rendered on the "default" OSM Carto map tiles, they're really intended for areas where routing should be omnidirectional rather than linear (although it doesn't actually work with many routers). Although area:highway=footway isn't rendered by OSM Carto, it is by some 3D renderers.

If you add a footway for a pavement, you'd need to add footway=sidewalk to it and sidewalk:*=separate to the parent road.

area:highway=footway
highway=pedestrian#How_to_map
osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

If you've set access=private, you don't really need to set private for other transport modes, as the access tag applies to all transport modes. It doesn't need to be changed, as the extra tags don't have any effect.

Is there an OSM-compatible source for which (if any) of the streets in Britannia Village have since been adopted by Newham?