Hi, I've reverted this changeset for you. Need any help please just ask. Oh and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Access=no means there is no access at all except for the owner or operator of the land. These areas/ways are usually signed and/or have barriers indicating that there is no access at all. Entering any such areas/ways, unless you have express permission is trespass. The public do have a right of access to a PRoW even if it is on private land to which there is no other access right, thus such areas/ways cannot be access=no as there clearly is access by right to some form of traffic (foot on a public footpath).

Regards Bernard.

Hi, You are correct and that is what I've done here. I removed the path section that was mapped on top of the track and transferred the PRoW tags to the section of the track.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, But there is foot access. If public access by vehicles is excluded then vehicile=no. If it's a farm track then access=agricultural would exclude all other vehicles. Please remember that the wiki is not always right, in fact it's quite often wrong.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, I've removed part of Way: 1150294287 because it duplicated an existing highway. I've also corrected some of the tagging.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, ref bridleway Way: 1150292515, there is access to this PRoW therefore tagging access=no is incorrect, you should specify the traffic that has no access. I've removed the tag.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The warnings above are because your new steps are not connected to the highway network. Thus they cannot be used to route from one place to another. Also a couple of times you placed steps beside a mapped footpath, the path should have the steps inserted. Otherwise, you have a highway atop a highway, confusing for routers. I've corrected these instances, please check them.

Regards Bernard.

Sorry for the spelling mistakes.

Hi, It's usual practice to add a lately tag to bridges so that the render and route properly, please see:- bridge=*#Layers
I've added layer=1 to this bridge.

Regards Bernard.

Duplicated school names removed.

Hi Dan, Yes that's certainly OK with me.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, The market group is called London Central Markets of which Smithfield Market is one. Thus the tagging was correct as Smithfield was drawn and tagged in its own right. I've amended back.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

It looks like part of your new footpath goes under, over, or through a building to Edward Street. If it goes through or below some part of the building then that section should be made and the tags layer=-1 and tunnel=building_passage should be added to that section.

Need help just ask, Regards Bernard,

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Only verifiable on the ground features are allowed in OSM. Thus I've removed the name from the road center node. You could add your genuine business premises. Need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunately, you have added lots of duplicate highways by placing roads on top of existing roads. This seriously disrupts routing. Thus I've removed all the duplicated highways.

If a highway needs amending in any way it is OSM best practice to amend the existing highway, even if the existing highway needs to be split into sections.

Need any help please jut ask.
Regards Bernard.

Hi, This changeset contains editing to more than 80 ways, thus making it very difficult pick out errors, by yourself or other contributors. I have however found several instances of duplicated sections of highways where you've placed a new highway atop an existing highway.
I've removed the following list of highways because they are duplicates.
Way: 1148002804
Way: 1148182504
Way: 1148182496
Way: 1148182518
Way: 1148182508
Way: 1148182519
Way: 1148182517
Way: 1148182510
Way: 1148182511
Way: 1148182512
Way: 1148182513
Way: 1148002774
Way: 1148002775
Way: 1148182524
Way: 1148182520
Way: 1148182521
Way: 1148002783
Way: 1148002780

There's no need to make large changesets, they only make checking the edit more difficult for the mapper or anyone else trying to correct mistakes.

All looks good now, Regards Bernard.

Hi, The details of the school in general are held in the tagging of the school area outline including the school name. Thus the school name is not needed on individual school buildings or features, it only duplicates instances of the name being rendered.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Yes the "wibbly-wobbly" detailed outline, doesn't look correct. How ever you got that outline effect I suspect that's what caused the 4 self-intersections that I've removed.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Unfortunately your mapping features have introduced serious problems to the OSM database from several duplicated incorrectly tagged highways. Thus I've reverted the changes.
Please learn about OSM best practices before adding more changes.

Regards Bernard.

Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Although your POI "Pet Guinea pigs" does not cause harm to the OSM database, it's not really what a live worldwide database is for. You could save the POI to your device, or compile your own little map offline.

Regards Bernard.