Your edit removed the tag boundary=administrative from the administrative boundary of Reading Borough Council (already reinstated by another user). What were you trying to do here?

Yes, that's what the segregated=yes tag means. That's why I added it in October 2018.

segregated=yes

None of the objects edited in this changeset are footways in the legal sense, so Highway Code Rule 64 and s. 72 Highway Act 1835 are entirely irrelevant here.

In OSM in the UK, highway=footway already implies bicycle=no, so adding bicycle=dismount has no effect on routing,

None of the objects edited in this changeset are footways in the legal sense, so Highway Code Rule 64 and s. 72 Highway Act 1835 are entirely irrelevant here.

As far as I know, none of these streets are maintainable at public expense, so the degree and modes of permissive access are at the discretion of the landowner. I would rather see a definitive statement on that access from someone with authority to make it.

If you're adding residential gardens, they might be better tagged as leisure=garden + garden:type=residential than landuse=grass.

garden:type=residential

These were already mapped as highway=footway, which is implicitly bicycle=no. Adding bicycle=dismount will have no effect on OSM-based routers, which weren't likely to be sending bicycles along these paths anyway.

It can be helpful to tag footways as bicycle=no where it is explicitly signed with TSRGD diagram 951 signs (Riding of pedal cycles prohibited). In these cases, the signs can also be added as a node on the way nearest to the sign's physical location, tagged as traffic_sign=GB:951 + bicycle=no

You may find this useful:
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

I don't know what you were trying to do here, but I'd be fairly surprised if the service roads in Crystal Palace Park had suddenly taken wild zig-zags all over the place. Please be more careful in future.

Reverted in changeset/149975798

As far as I can tell from Bing aerial imagery, the gate still exists.

The problem here is the separate sidewalks added by @alisonlung. They were added by a user with a task manager determined to "complete" sidewalks in a map square. Unfortunately, they made no effort whatsoever to connect the sidewalks via crossings or do anything else beneficial for routing. I'd be inclined to delete the sidewalks and reinstate the gate.

I see that you have added informal=yes to this path, implying that it is an unmaintained desire line. However it has a name and appears from aerial imagery to be maintained.

Also, changing highway=bridleway|cycleway|footway to highway=path may not be entirely helpful to renderers or routers.

Thanks for adding these. When you connect them with pedestrian crossings, you may find this useful:
osm.wiki/Guidelines_for_pedestrian_navigation

You deleted several streets in your edit. This has been reverted.

I am not convinced that a "no left turn, except HGVs" restriction ever existed, not least because of the disruption to the 97 bus route this would have caused. There is certainly no evidence for it now and the relation has been deleted in changeset/149808236

The details were provided in the changeset comment, to which you could have replied.

Sidewalks which do not connect to anything are *not* useful for creating running/walking routes. They're at best decorative and at worst spam.

The sidewalks added by you which connect to other highways are still there, together with sidewalk:$side on the parent highways.

I walk and run a lot in London and have added a lot of crossings and separate sidewalks. These are accurately mapped, actually work for routing and include accessibility features. Even after adding them with the best available aerial and street-side imagery, it's still worth walking the newly-added sidewalks with StreetComplete to add missing details.

Incidentally, in what way is London your local area? It's only just on the same continent.
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?asturksever

Pond tags restored. As effectively deleting the pond this was not mentioned in your changeset comment, I have assumed this was unintentional (and not the deliberate deletion of an existing feature, which is generally considered to be vandalism).

changeset/149765428

As you have not responded, this has been reverted in changeset/149765275

Fixed in changeset/149765163

Decorative sidewalks deleted in changeset/149764140

There is no point adding a separate sidewalk unless it is correctly connected to other highways, usually via crossings.

The sidewalk tags on the parent highway should also be updated.

Re-tagged as an unmarked crossing in changeset/149584087

Fixed in changeset/149763083

The crossings here are correctly mapped by local mappers who have (a) been there and (b) know what they are doing.

There is no crossing where you added this node. Nonsense reverted in changeset/149762799