Thanks for adding it!
PROW information added using https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/epping-forest/stanford-rivers/

Hi, welcome to OSM and many thanks for updating the new access from the Greenway.

You asked for a review, so I hope the following comments are useful. You did a much better job than I would have done when I was new to OSM. If you need any help, please feel free to ask.

In respect of the new link itself ( way/853988878 ):
- It may need connecting to one of the service roads in the car park or hospital grounds, so that pedestrian routers can reach the hospital entrance(s) from The Greenway.
- The contents of the name=* tag should be moved to description=*, see name=* and description=*
- The oneway=yes tag should probably be deleted unless the route can only be used to enter the hospital grounds (routers will probably ignore it anyway).
- Where the link crosses the fence on the boundary, consider adding a barrier=gate node (assuming there is a gate here), or splitting the fence to create a gap.
- The construction=footway tag can be deleted, as it is no longer under construction.
- If only part of the link descends an incline, you could split the way and remove the incline=down tag from the flat part.
- Assuming the link is on hospital grounds, you could add the access tags bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive to it, plus any gates and new connecting ways.

Thanks for updating these PROWs.

Is access=no really necessary here? A highway=bridleway should already exclude motor vehicles and everything "above" horse. I suspect this tag is here because iD presents a plethora of often redundant access tags where the most appropriate value would be to delete them or leave them unset.

Also, designation=public_bridleway might be a better fit than designation=public_right_of_way.

You can also find right of way information including the prow_ref (in this case, "Bobbingworth BR 20") using this site
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/epping-forest/bobbingworth/

These wiki articles might be helpful to decide which of iD's suggestions can be ignored:
highway=bridleway
osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#England_and_Wales

That's a pity, after all the care they took to work around it. I wonder what happened.

I wonder if this should be permissive rather than designated? There isn't any true public space in the private Canary Wharf estate.

No, my failure in reading comprehension, sorry.
It was the named cycleway/footway which threw me. I'm obviously caffeine deficient this lunchtime!

I'm not sure if it's an Osmose quirk, but the 30 mph speed limit in the LBWF part of Snaresbrook Road should still be current. As far as I can tell, The [unhelpfully named] Waltham Forest (20 M.P.H. And 40 M.P.H.) (No. 2) Speed Limit Order 2019 hasn't been revoked.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3234690

I'm sure I've run and walked through there a few times.

The "cyclists dismount" sign and cycle barrier are visible on Mapillary imagery, so I've added those. I have also disconnected the footways from the tunnels, as there were two shared nodes.

Some of the cycle routing problems may have been due to another mapper, who concentrates on long distance footpaths, changing footway/cycleway to path. Unfortunately, path doesn't have any default access assumptions unless access tags are added explicitly. I've reverted these to their previous types.

These changes may take a few weeks to work as expected in routing services like Komoot and Strava.

changeset/101711056

I suspect the issue may be the shared node with the Limehouse Link (already layer=-2), which may be treated as a junction. Setting layer=1 on the path should not be necessary.

Hi Bernard,
I've updated the opening hours and added them to the route relations as well. The other (untagged) exception to ferry operation is fog, although I don't remember that happening when it was part of my regular commute.
changeset/101575195

"Hamsey" may already have been mapped as "Hamsey Place Barn". It's Grade II listed ( https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1267318 ), although the heritage/historic tagging isn't present in OSM. I'm happy to help with adding this, if this is what you wanted to do.

Good idea. There are a some where I really ought to add notes with photographs where the position is a bit out as well.

I see. You converted the landuse=residential polygon to a multipolygon and cut out the non-residential parts as inner members. If you/Potlatch added changeset comments and source information, it might be easier for other mappers to work out what is going on.

What is the practical benefit of merging the whole town into a single landuse=residential polygon, which now overlaps landuses which are anything but residential?

Done.

Is the taxi=yes access tag needed at all? It looks like the cab firm which mapped the oneway=yes restriction added the redundant taxi="one way" tag.

Removing the highway=residential tag from Langdon Close ( way/93402091 ) stops it being treated by renderers and routers as any form of road. This is probably not what you intended.

I'm fairly sure QEOP haven't changed these since I uploaded pics to Mapillary, if that's of any help. I'll double check on my run this afternoon.
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/dyTyBiFW21nJkxOqaf9k5Q

It may be worth keeping the building=yes tag, as it remains a building whether or not it contains a branch of Tesco.

Thanks - and thanks again for the work you and your team are doing on junctions.