Thanks for updating this. You could also add ownership=private to further clarify the situation.

ownership=*

Thanks for updating this. However, access=private may be more appropriate here than access=permit. The permit value is defined as:

"Open only to people who have obtained a permit granting them access, but permit is ordinarily granted. If permit is hard to obtain, then it is typically access=private."

access=*

Thanks for adding this. I've tweaked a couple of the tags to fit OSM conventions.

If the gate is still there and normally closed/locked, bicycle=yes (and the foot=yes which was already present) would be incorrect as there are separately mapped cycle bypasses.

The traffic order for the closure here is at https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56291-482

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for adding these paths.

If it is of any interest or use to you, there is a resource with additional information on public rights of way (PRoW) in this area.
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/castle-point/canvey/

You inadvertently added highway=footway to the outer member of the large natural=wood multipolygon. Fixed in changeset/148751818

You appear to have tagged the part of Comet Way approaching The Airfield Roundabout from the SW as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists and have therefore reverted your edit in changeset/148673496

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

You appear to have tagged the part of York Gate between the carriageways of Marylebone Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists and have therefore reverted your edit in changeset/148672890

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

Where you have used foot=use_sidepath on this cycleway, do you mean that this is a segregated cycle path (i.e. foot=yes + segregated=yes)?

way/247037559

The foot=use_sidepath tag does not apply in the UK. If there's an explicit signed prohibition of pedestrians (and there isn't here, as it's very rare for roads which have a sidewalk), then the road would be foot=no.

Tag removed in changeset/148535804

A yellow non-statutory sign saying that "pedestrians do not have priority" does not imply anything remotely like a prohibition of pedestrians. It suggests an attitude by a landowner to pedestrians which is hardly in the spirit of the Highway Code, but it's not a prohibition.

It's not just my feeling about access tags. The second paragraph of the wiki page for access=* says "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if signage is generally ignored."

There's currently a discussion of this in the Talk-GB mailing list, starting at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2024-March/031184.html

What was your source for the pedestrian prohibitions on H3 and other roads? Are these legal restrictions explicitly signed with a "pedestrians prohibited" traffic sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1) and a traffic order, or a feeling that pedestrians probably shouldn't use these roads (even though they usually have verges)?

You appear to have tagged two sections of Fox Milne Roundabout as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

You appear to have tagged the link between carriageways on the A45 as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists and have therefore reverted your edit.

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

You appear to have tagged a section of Duncannon Street as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists and have reverted your edit.

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

A POI is a Point of Interest. In this case, you deleted a postbox in front of numbers 3/4 Hammonds Ridge.

You also added a taxi rank with a 4 car capacity in the middle of the London Road/Jane Murray Way. Were this not sufficiently improbable on its own, the rank was supposedly called "Pleb Taxi Airport Runs" and operated by "Mr Plebby McPlebbington". I can only speculate as to your motives in including that mobile number several times.

OpenStreetMap is a live database and the addition of fictitious information is generally regarded as vandalism.
osm.wiki/Vandalism

Your changeset comment here was "Initial add with Bitcoin tags", which is an inadequate description of your edit.
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Is the licence of CAMRA's proprietary WhatPub? database compatible with OSM? The statement that "Where not already belonging or assigned to others, all material remains our copyright." on the site would suggest otherwise.

These pedestrian areas might have been better mapped as area:highway=footway than area=yes + highway=footway (which is arguably tagging for the renderer), but they represent something different to the linear highway=footway ways and should not have been deleted. I have reinstated and re-tagged them in changeset/148282741

Which lint tool are you using and what was the actual "error" reported?

Hi @trigpoint. I'm waiting for a reply from @ajmat as they give a source more recent than the Mapillary imagery available to me. If I don't get a response, I'll go there tomorrow and check.

The POI you have created is in South London, but has an address and postcode in Southampton, together with what appears to be a Bangladeshi telephone number. Wherever it is, it's not here.