Hi, welcome to OSM. Thanks for identifying this maxheight location and limit. Can you put the maxheight = 4.8 on this one section of Foul Lane that goes under the bridge rather than on the rail tracks (where the height is not limited here).
If you ever need it there are notes on tags like this maxheight=*
(and any other tag you want to look up) should you need to check anything. Happy mapping, Cebderby (Clive)

Please be careful when moving the map. Fixed one dragged node.
マップ移動の際はご注意ください。 ドラッグされた 1 つのノードを修正しました。
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=136894579

Please be careful when moving the map. Fixed one dragged node.
マップ移動の際はご注意ください。 ドラッグされた 1 つのノードを修正しました。
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=136889410

Two nodes were dragged badly out of position. I have reverted this changeset to repair the problem. [Google translate follows] دو گره به شدت از موقعیت خارج شده اند. برای تعمیر لغو شد.

Thanks for your quick reply, yes I can easily revert. Done.

Hi. For highway=footway, the default foot=yes is implied and unnecessary to add. And for some ways eg where access=permissive is recorded, adding foot=yes is absolutely wrong (unless there is a legal right to access at all times and the permissive really only applies to some other mode of travel). This is making the map wrong not better.

node/1838456031 drag reverted in my ch. 137769082

This changeset contained 39 building-tagged polygon 'splodges' roughly where buildings are in Scotland. And 8 not much better in Colombia. Plus 1 fictional park area in Germany (as 1st comment) adding a node to an existing track. It also dragged nodes in Scotland (1 road junction, 1 fast food, 2 other road ends).
Nothing relating to the changeset comment and nothing of value. Fully reverted.

The turn restriction you added was not as you wrote in the description - you added left turn only from Crossgate, the wrong road, blocking routing onto both of the A690 routes from that junction. I assume you are not mapping from personal visits to the locations but perhaps from verbal/written notes from others eg drivers?? If you have not visited the locations you edit, it is absolutely vital that you check all available imagery and all the tags on the ways before making a change, in this case this was clearly and obviously wrong from both the imagery AND the existing tags which you didn't change (or presumably even look at).
I've removed the false turn restriction and added the actual one - as you described, you cannot turn right from Crossgate Peth to Alexandria Crescent.

Your addition of width=6.6 to the full length of this road does not do what you intended - it claims that the roadway is 6.6m wide.
I've replaced this with the tag maxwidth=6'6" on the relevant part of the way just south of the end of Shearwater Road, which looks to be the actual restriction.

I've reverted your incorrect addition of motor_vehicle=no to this public road

Hi, just to let you know I've dropped the access=permissive you set on these 2 gates. What was set before was 'correct' but confusing: access=no was set to stop all modes of transport with foot=designated set to override that for foot. But access=permissive says that all modes of transport can use the gate unless the landowner wants to close it, which is wrong on both parts for a public footpath. In the end, the gates can only be accessed via the appropriately tagged public footpath so it's not doing anything, I've left it as foot=designated alone.

highway=busway is correct for the bus only way, it's just that it's unfortunately not yet rendered on the standard map. I found you'd also dragged a few nodes out of position while editing, be careful when moving the map around, all is fixed up. Please make sure the changeset comments correspond with what you've actually intended to change.

Hi, you deleted a bunch of things from the map in this edit (deleting doesn't just remove them from your edit session, it removes them from the map). I've reversed your changes, all is back as it was.

Found that some of the Mapillary traces are from 2023, and show a new high-kerbed island on the Grove Lane exit, presumably to try to enforce what looks like an annoying and arbitrary L-turn-only out of Grove Lane (down to the big roundabout and back to get to the village!?). Specifically, https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=232492605955813
shows the new island, a car crossing into Grove Lane (the left only way added here seems to have been wrong), and (crucially for cycling NW-bound on the cycle route) an exception for cyclists against having to turn left out of Grove Lane. Think I've captured this ok in changeset/137201850
but feel free to tweak if necessary.

Has the designation (recorded in OSM as byway open to all traffic) been formally removed and the way now privately owned? This designation and the multiple references to public right of way in the other tags don't seem consistent with 'permissive'?

Surely this is the vehicle access way to the line of garages, so highway=service was correct as it was? If it's signed as private for motor vehicles, you can put motor_vehicle=private. You can only put what's signed, don't invent restrictions and speed limits.

Please don't realign features to imagery without first aligning that imagery to match the "OSMUK Cadastral Parcels" overlay available in the iD editor layers tab.

Looking at the website for this site, it is not possible to rent single beds (or even single rooms) but is rented all-or-nothing. It is therefore not a 'hostel' but rather a large OSM 'chalet' as was previously correctly set.
See
tourism=hostel?uselang=en-GB
tourism=chalet?uselang=en-GB
and
tourism=guest_house?uselang=en-GB
Also you set a guest_house tag which is a sub-tag of tourism=guest_house, which this is not (and you did not select either). Reverted.

dragged node of foot bridge reset to original position, your changes visible in: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=136912450