Is this an Emergency Rendezvous Point? I don't know if there's an appropriate way to tag this as a seamark or emergency facility, but there may be something in the documentation linked below.
osm.wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects
osm.wiki/Emergency_facilities_and_amenities

If not, it could be worth asking in the OSM Community Forum.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Was dumping duplicates of traffic calming features right next to ones which had already been mapped by competent mappers supposed to help data consumers in some way?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your business to the map.

Tagging with shop=supermarket seems unlikely to be the most appropriate choice, based on your website content.

Perhaps amenity=training or one of the values of office=* might be a better fit?

amenity=training
office=*

This may not do quite what you expect. Using an access value of permissive means that anyone is permitted to use that road, but that the permission may be revoked at any time.

If this is the service road for the waste water treatment works, then destination may be appropriate, or private if explicit permission is required in advance (or if there's a locked gate).

There's a full explanation of access tagging on the Wiki here:
access=*

Thanks for the reassurance. Unfortunately, the comment did give the impression that the OS map was the source.

What you describe counts as your own survey. When you upload in the iD editor, you can select "Survey" and "GPS" as sources and this will add that information to the changeset.

Thanks!

Please keep up the good work with StreetComplete, that quest aside it's one of the best tools available to improve OpenStreetMap.

You appear to have tagged some sections of Watling Street and the A5 roundabout 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 the sections of Melton Road approaching the roundabout from the NE 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.

If you area using OS Explorer Sheet 149 as a source, this is subjrect to Ordnance Survey's copyright and MUST NOT be used as a source for OpenStreetMap.

There is OSM-compatible open data available for Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) in you area, available from
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/swale/swale-rural/

There's a more information on copyright and OSM at the links below.

osm.wiki/Copyright
osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey

If it's designated as a public footpath, the value for foot is designated or yes, never unknown.

Although the iD editor presents it as if the field ought to be completed, the general access=no tag is almost never appropriate or helpful on a footway, cycleway, or bridleway.

Thanks for spotting and updating this from highway=path to highway=bridleway. It was already tagged with designation=public_bridleway, so the access tags really should be horse=designated + bicycle=designated + foot=designated.

Although the iD editor you're using unhelpfully presents all the access tags as if they ought to be completed, access=no is rarely correct or helpful on a bridleway, cycleway, or footway.

There's a bit more information on PRoW tagging here:
osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I have re-tagged this as amenity=parking_space and added a little more detail to the surroundings.

amenity=parking_space

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Just adding access=private is sufficient to mark a track as private for all transport modes, although the iD editor you're using does make it look like the other fields ough to be completed.

The name tag is for the actual name of a feature, not a description like "Private Track" or "Public Footpath".

You're absolutely right, I'm sorry! Serves me right for posting before the first coffee of the day took effect.

Would you mind changing these to addr:city=London + addr:suburb=Brentford, as Brentford is not a post town and is an optional part of the address? Thanks.

osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom

Are you sure there was a 12t weight limit over Lillie Bridge back in 2015? The current 18t mgw limit seems quite recent.

How does adding an unsigned and presumably fictitious weight restriction "improving" [the] street network for routing?

Unfortunately, you have changed the name tag of objects, including some shops, to "Topsfield Parade".

I think that what you probably want here is the addr:substreet tag for individual objects.
osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom#addr:substreet

You could also split the landuse=retail polygon and set the name tag on that to Topsfield Parade, which would render on the map (most addr:* tags don't, apart from housenumber and housename).

How does adding an unsigned and presumably non-existent weight limit "improve the street network for routing"?

What was your source for the 5 tonne weight limit? Very prominent signage would be expected for such a low weight limit, particularly for a bridge over such a minor watercourse on an A road.