Thanks for adding these, but please bear in mind that OpenStreetMap's default units are metric, so a maxspeed without a unit is in kilometres per hour. Imperial units need to be specified, e.g. 30 mph, 12'6", etc.

See:
maxspeed=*
maxspeed:type=*#United_Kingdom

I've fixed this in
changeset/169662189

Vandalising OSM by adding fictitious weight restrictions isn't "improving [the] street network for routing".

Unlikely.

Hi, I'm trying to find the weight restriction sign here in Bing street side and Mapillary, but without any luck. Is the sign a weak bridge restriction or a goods vehicle restiction?

Thanks for adding this, but please note that maxweight=* restrictions (restricting the actual weight of the vehicle) are now quite rare on public highways in the UK, with only a few pre-1994 legacy road signs remaining.

For weak bridge/weak road weight restrictions, tag as maxweightrating=*

For HGV weight restrictions, as in this case, tag as maxweightrating:hgv=*
"except for access" maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=none @ destination
"except for loading" maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=none @ delivery

Thanks. Unfortunately a lot of routers are a bit broken and wrongly assume that highway=trunk implies that it's motorway-style infrastructure. You'd hope that the 20mph speed limit and presence of a cycle lane would be taken into account without needing to add technically redundant access tags like bicycle=yes

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

If you want to add a postcode to a street, or another object which isn't directly addressable, you can add a postal_code=* tag. For streets, it's more common to just add the postal district as addresses may have different postcodes, but with a short street where all the addresses have the same postcode, the full postcode is fine.

Addressable objects like houses and businesses use addr:postcode=* instead.

postal_code=*

It might be worth adding live_music=yes as well, see:
live_music=*

Paint isn't physical separation. If we take the intersection between Birmingham Road/Beeches Road/Roebuck Street as an example, the turn lanes are just that: lanes. They aren't physically separated by anything, or at least they certainly weren't when I ran that way a fortnight ago. It's a fiction. It's mapping for the renderer.

No problem, thanks for fixing the abbreviation. I'll add a note.

It was already tagged correctly, by you, 10 years ago. Deleting the highway tag in order to hide it from the map is essentially vandalism. I've restored that and removed the redundant access tags.

No pedestrian routing software will send people down a highway=footway + foot=private way, unless the software is hopelessly broken.

If locals are using it as a shortcut because the gate at the S end is unlocked, attempting to remove or hide the path will not help.

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

If the café is entirely vegan, it should probably be tagged as diet:vegan=only rather than diet:vegan=yes

Reverted in changeset/169345442

Decorative sidewalks deleted in changeset/169345013

In what way is adding incorrect (and on public roads in the UK, impossible) foot=use_sidepath access restrictions instead of correctly setting sidewalk:$side=separate a "big improvement"?

Please don't add fiction like foot=use_sidepath to roads in the UK. Pedestrians use highways by absolute right unless explicitly forbidden (requiring a traffic order and a sign), therefore you adding foot=no without that is wrong. This is not the case here.

If you read the wiki for that tag, you will note that it states: "This tag should only be applied in countries that have compulsory footways."
foot=use_sidepath

If you're adding separate sidewalks, please also set sidewalk:$side=separate on the parent street. That would be far more useful than adding non-existent access restrictions.

Please don't add fiction like foot=use_sidepath to roads in the UK. Pedestrians use highways by absolute right unless explicitly forbidden (requiring a traffic order and a sign), therefore adding foot=no without a sign is also wrong.

If you read the wiki for that tag, you will note that it states: "This tag should only be applied in countries that have compulsory footways."
foot=use_sidepath

If you're adding separate sidewalks, please also set sidewalk:$side=separate on the parent street. That would be far more useful than adding non-existent access restrictions.

Please don't add fiction like foot=use_sidepath to roads in the UK. Pedestrians use highways by absolute right unless explicitly forbidden (requiring a traffic order and a sign), therefore adding foot=no without a sign is also wrong.

If you read the wiki for that tag, you will note that it states: "This tag should only be applied in countries that have compulsory footways."
foot=use_sidepath

If you're adding separate sidewalks, please also set sidewalk:$side=separate on the parent street. That would be far more useful than adding non-existent access restrictions.

Please don't add fiction like foot=use_sidepath to roads in the UK. Pedestrians use highways by absolute right unless explicitly forbidden (requiring a traffic order and a sign), therefore you adding foot=no without that is wrong. This is not the case here.

If you read the wiki for that tag, you will note that it states: "This tag should only be applied in countries that have compulsory footways."
foot=use_sidepath

If you're adding separate sidewalks, please also set sidewalk:$side=separate on the parent street. That would be far more useful than adding non-existent access restrictions.

Vandalising OSM by adding fictitious weight restrictions isn't "improving [the] street network for routing".