Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The way mentioned is adjacent to way/662332132/history/2, which is also surface=paving_stones tagged by another user. As well as this way: way/1024398493/history/2. More than likely, VLD292 was trying to follow the OSM tags of the adjacent footways. Just providing some perspective on what most likely happened in this instance. This, however, does not negate the importance of verification, which I talk about in this post: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-walkabout-london-complex-intersections-pedestrian-mapping-initiative/134887/5

We do have this OSM TM project shared on our organisation wiki, and I'm more than happy to follow-up in the OSM UK channel.

Hello everyone - In my validation process, one of the issues is the separately mapped sidewalks along residential roads. In our guidelines, we have iterated (based on local mapping practices) these sidewalks should not be mapped separately. Our team is in the process of reverting the sidewalks.

Thank you for this update, rskedgell. Our team is reviewing the complete edit history. The reported account is archived, but I'm more than happy to correspond with DWG as needed. We appreciate your local expertise. Thank you for extending your time and contributions to OSM.

Thank you for this update, Udarian. We will continue to work around areas that are not intersecting/overlapping the geojson you provided on github.

Hello - for way/104367105: Is this the name or just the description? If it is the description please use the description tag instead.