(Review requested)

That wasn't the problem, but it's now fixed.

(Review requested)

Adding a fictitious vertical separation to get rid of a warning generated by the iD editor is not a good idea.

The iD editor makes a lot of suggestions, some of which are ill-advised, but they are only suggestions. If you do not know how to resolve an issue, even after reading the documentation, please leave a fixme tag on the affected objects and/or add a note to the map.

The actual reason for iD generating this warning is that you incorrectly added building=yes to the enclosing polygon for the school in changeset #159150764. If this really were the case, iD would expect to find different layers, or a tunnel=building_passage.

I have fixed both issues.

This is not a dual carriageway, either in terms of OpenStreetMap's mapping conventions or law - there is no physical separation of the lanes by a central reservation.

The OSM wiki for central reservations is here:
osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

The legal definition in Schedule 6 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which sets national speed limits for different classes of vehicle uses the following definition:
“dual-carriageway road” means a road part of which consists of a central reservation to separate a carriageway to be used by vehicles proceeding in one direction from a carriageway to be used by vehicles proceeding in the opposite direction.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/schedule/6/paragraph/2

(Review requested)

No, not really. You can read the documentation for the layer key at layer=*

(Review requested)

No, unfortunately turning the entire length of the driveway into a tunnel=building_passage is neither helpful nor coherent. Highways are often split into segments because their physical properties differ along their length. In this case, a passage through a building with a 4.5m surveyed clearance only applies where the road goes through the building.

tunnel=building_passage

I have reverted your changeset, so there's nothing you need to do here.

(Review requested)

That looks fine to me. Thanks for spotting and correcting it.

Thank you!

Please also refer to discussion here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/uk-quarterly-project-2024-q4-pedestrian-crossings/119792

Please don't degrade the tagging of crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked just because Rapid tells you to. Where both the crossing node and way are tagged, Rapid is rather stupidly giving automatic precedence to the tags on the way, rather than suggesting that you check which best represents the situation. In London, the node rather than the way is more likely to be accurately and completely tagged.

You can use crossing:markings=dots to convey this information without removing information about the type of crossing.

The point of this project is to improve pedestrian routing and navigation, so hiding information about the type of crossing from routers is a little unhelpful.

Thanks!

That's annoying from OsmAnd. Given the described state of the path, it might be worth adding appropriate smoothness and tracktype tags.

Thanks for editing OpenStreetMap.

If a footpath is already mapped as highway=footway, the default access for bicycles, horses, motor vehicles, etc. is already "no". Adding those tags does no harm, but they are unlikely to have any effect on routing software.

It can sometimes be worth adding bicycle=no if there is a sign explicitly prohibiting cycling. Where a sign is present, you can also add the sign itself by adding a node (point) on the path at the location nearest the sign, tagged with traffic_sign=GB:951 + bicycle=no

Please STOP degrading crossing=traffic_signals nodes to crossing=marked

As someone who actually lives here and uses the data in real life, blindly changing tags without understanding what you're doing or why is incredibly unhelpful.

What is the point of these sidewalks, other than decorative mapping for the renderer?

Sidewalks which do not connect via crossings at junctions are at best useless for pedestrian navigation, but often create absurdly circuitous routes.

Is this an explicitly signed prohibition?

Hi, thanks for updating the map. The best way to tag this restriction is actually motor_vehicle=destination

motor_vehicle=destination

Another user had already updated the tags, so there's nothing you need to do.

I've reset the tagging on crossings in Greater London where this seems to have happened, so there shouldn't be anything further for you to do.

Is there a sign explicitly prohibiting buses ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made#tgp1-tbl1-tbd1-tr17 ) from using the section of Vyne Road passing under Basingstoke Station? Access tags like bus=no represent legal access rights and restrictions.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You appear to have moved some bus stop nodes onto the highway. Nodes mapped as highway=bus_stop + public_transport=platform represent the position where passengers board.

public_transport=platform

The place where buses stop on the highway can be added as a public_transport=stop_position node.

public_transport=stop_position

The platform and the stop position can be linked together using a public_transport=stop_area relation.

public_transport=stop_area

Please ensure that you have read and understood the documentation before making further edits to bus stops. If you need any help, feel free to ask.

I have reverted your edit in changeset/158570330

No problem, I've added it.