Welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for adding a missing pedestrian link.

You can include the steps themselves as a segment in the middle of the new footway using highway=steps, which is documented here:
highway=steps

If you'd like any help with this, please feel free to ask.

The key taxi=yes in the UK applies to taxis, not to PHVs. Unfortunately, what you have done is prohibited access to taxis. The motor_vehicle=no tag already prohibited PHVs. I have reverted your edit accordingly.

How access tags work in OSM is documented in the wiki here:
access=*

Unrelated landuse polygons removed in changeset/147084307

As the relation's name (changed to description, because it's clearly not a name in the OSM sense) explicitly states that it is for collecting *buildings*, is there any reason for it to contain objects which are not tagged with building=* or building:part=* ?

Also, please read osm.wiki/Relations_are_not_categories

Cycleways, sidewalks, crossings and PRoWs removed in changeset/147084021

Roads removed in changeset/147083834

Thanks for spotting and fixing that!

For some reason, another mapper had changed what is obviously a pedestrianised street to highway=unclassified, added access=no and forgot to allow pedestrians. I've changed it back to the original highway=pedestrian and removed the access=no tag.

Is it privately owned, or gated? Can visitors, deliveries and taxis drive to a destination on this street without explicit permission?

"Private Road" signs rarely mean access=private, simply that the road is unadopted.

Adding foot=no implies a legal prohibition for pedestrians on the carriageway, which would be explicitly signed. Adding appropriate sidewalk tags (in this case, sidewalk:both=separate).

Adding access=no prohibited routing across the bridge for *all* transport modes, which is unlikely to be what you intended.

Thanks for spotting and fixing that. I've added sidewalk tagging to the road and removed the silly and redundant access tags which iD encourages its users to add.

The power line was "glued" to the new footpath with shared nodes. It's not a serious problem and I've now unglued them (not sure how to do that with the iD editor).

If the new footpath is a Public Right of Way (PRoW), you may find this useful:
osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging

Many thanks. In areas which do have London postcodes, I sometimes see what should really be in addr:suburb, or the name of the London Borough Council as values for addr:city

Unfortunately, it's not very correct, since the post town associated with the DA15 postcode district is Sidcup, not London. London is not part of the (postal) address of these buildings. Please revert.

The current use of addr:* tags in the UK is documented in the wiki here
osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom

Unfortunately, it's not very correct, since the post town associated with the DA15 postcode district is Sidcup, not London. London is not part of the (postal) address of these buildings. Please revert.

The current use of addr:* tags in the UK is documented in the wiki here
osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom

Thanks for your detailed response.

From what you have said, I think the correct tagging on The Drive would be ownership=private + access=yes

Pine Trees Drive should be OK as highway=residential without any ownership or access tags.

Dukes Ride and Georgian Close, if owned privately, would probably be ownership=private + access=destination

For personal use only, you can find out whether a road is publicly or private maintained from findmystreet.co.uk, but the licence for this is incompatible with OSM.

Updates to OSM can take a couple of weeks to propagate to Komoot, but I've noticed some quicker updates recently (it's my preferred site for planning running routes).

It might be worth opening a discussion on this in the OSM community forums, as other mappers more experienced than me may have other suggestions.

In the event of a dispute,the Data Working Group (DWG) can arbitrate as a last resort.
osm.wiki/Disputes

I hope that's helpful to you. Good luck and happy cycling.

Thanks for replying so quickly. Not a problem, I've undeleted it in changeset/146663361

Which "warning" caused you to delete a tree near Lincoln's Inn Fields in London?

Documentation on the access and ownership keys:
access=*
ownership=*

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

Are these roads privately owned, but with access for deliveries and visitors and no thoroughfare? If this is the case, the tags you might want are:

access=destination
ownership=private

The iD editor presents access tags for other transport modes as if they were necessary, but you can and should leave them unset if the general access value already describes the situation,

There's limited street side imagery for The Drive and none for Pine Trees Drive, but the Bing Street Side imagery shows a non-standard weight limit sign at the junction with Swakeleys Road, which isn't legal on a public highway.

Reverted in changeset/146608359 in order to restore the data before geofabrik.de extracts are generated.

#DWG