No, it isn't. It's not signed as a Home Zone and it's not residential.

(Review requested)

For overgrown sections, there are some alternatives to deletion which may apply here:
overgrown=*
obstacle=*
trail_visibility=*

If you feel that any of those apply, it's probably worth adding a check_date tag as well.

I realise you mapped this 5 years ago, but could I check the access tagging you've used on the N-S service road parallel to Booth Road: access=no + motor_vehicle=designated (no transport mode may use this road, except all motor vehicles for which it is a legal right of way)?

way/837344032

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

The access tagging you've used here (access=no + motor_vehicle=permissive + bicycle=no + foot=permissive) is equivalent to saying "this track may not be used by any transport mode, except drivers of motor vehicles and pedestrians who are permitted to use it at any time, although this permission may be withdrawn."

If you meant "this is a private track, which may only be used with explicit permission", the only access tag you need is access=private

Done in changeset/171144734

I'm afraid I have no idea why that's happening in Facebook. It may be a problem on their side, as they have their own check in locations which are harder to correct.

Thanks. It's probably better to undelete just the building outline (I can do this for you, I'm not sure if it's possible in the web-based iD editor) so that it preserves the edit history, but change it to something like building=construction while it's being redeveloped.

building=construction

Thanks for updating this. Is the building where the café and restaurant were located still there?

Adding machine learning crap without bothering to check it is bad enough without being your being patronising.

Was the 15mph speed limit on Victoria Bridge a temporary restriction for street works?

Are these living streets all signed as home zones? From the aerial imagery, they just appear to have a different surface and no pavements/sidewalks. Presumably they also have the default 30 mph speed limit of other restricted roads? They're the antithesis of living streets: the developer appears to have prioritised cars and made no provision whatsoever for pedestrians.

highway=living_street

That may be the case, but access tags in OSM reflect verifiable legal restrictions, not subjective opinions. Pedestrians use the highway by absolute right unless there is a traffic order and associated signage (pedestrians prohibited, TSRGD diagram 625.1), which is not the case here. If it were the case, it would render 8 bus stops legally inaccessible.

There are tags you can correctly add to help pedestrian routers decide whether or not to use a road:
maxspeed=*
sidewalk=*
verge=*

Tagging, including absence of pavements/sidewalks, updated in changeset/171080923

In a mowed area of grass?

Are you *sure* that this open air sports court is a building?

way/1328976827

Dragged nodes reverted in changeset/171077931

Are you sure that the area of grass visible in the aerial imagery is now woodland?

Unfortunately you've dragged a couple of nodes here, extending an area of grass across two roads and causing a kink in Springwood Avenue.

Which map feature was not the correct size?

I've reverted this in changeset/171077509

+source=Bing street side imagery

+source=Bing street side imagery

Thanks for updating this, but please use access=private for this rather than access=no. They're not synonyms and access=no on its own means nobody can use it unless it's overridden by other access tags.

Thanks for spotting that - I should have noticed and fixed it when I updated the bridge signs and restrictions.