Welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for adding this public footpath.

If you're trying to improve the mapping of public rights of way in your area, you might find this resource useful:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/bucks/-/

No problem. Access tagging on private land can be a bit tricky, as it might be destination, permissive, customers, or private depending on signage and usage.

Unless they're gated, service roads used to reach different business on an industrial estate are probably ownership=private + access=destination. Setting access=private implies that explicit permission is required.

Customers of and deliveries to Access Self Storage and Howdens should be able to use routing software to reach those premises.

Is this a new prohibition and if so, is there a link to an OSM-compatible source?

I realise that some of the Bing street side imagery is quite old, but I haven't been able to find any TSRGD diagram 951 (Riding of pedal cycles prohibited) signs at junctions along this section.

I see that The A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Development Consent Order 2024 (SI 2024 No. 60) implements a "prohibition of pedestrians, riding of pedal cycles, ridden or accompanied horses, horse drawn vehicles, agricultural motor vehicles and any motor cycle with an engine capacity of under 50cc." (This can probably be tagged with motorroad=yes rather than adding all the individual restrictions.)

I can't find anything similar for the A120 to Capel St Mary section, but I realise that I might not be looking in the right place.

If some of them are wildly inaccurate representations of the interior of the building, my inclination would be to delete those outright.

We do tag footpaths and corridors through railway stations and shopping malls, often as highway=corridor or highway=footway + indoor=yes. I realise that in those cases, they're more useful to routers as they are usually places which you can go through rather than to.

Using indoor=footway as a replacement for highway=* seems somewhat unsatisfactory. Not only is it undocumented and likely to be ignored by data consumers, but the simple indoor tagging scheme is based on area routing and indoor=footway might be expected to be a polygon rather than a line.
osm.wiki/Guidelines_for_pedestrian_navigation#Inside_buildings

Maybe it is worth keeping some of the land side footways/corridors between the pedestrian and public transport entrances, connecting with the lifts and escalators? These seem to me like fairly sane and useful endpoints for pedestrian navigation.

How does replacing highway=footway ways with the undocumented indoor=footway tag work with routing software?

Effectively deleting these objects "to reduce map clutter" looks a lot like tagging for the renderer.

You appear to have tagged a section of the link between the A38 and Ermington Road 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?

https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=50.384058%7E-3.924331&lvl=20.0&mo=om.1&pi=-4.2&style=x&dir=56.8

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.

Thanks!

If it looks like a desire line path, there's the informal=yes tag you could add.

informal=yes

Thanks. I could see the road layout had changed from the aerial imagery, but didn't have time to remodel it when I fixed the weight limit tagging.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your edit looks fine to me, although the operator tag should probably be the academy trust rather than the headteacher.

The addr:city tag should be Wallington rather than London. Although it's within the London Borough of Sutton, the post town is normally used for this tag in the UK. There's documentation on this at osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom

Many thanks. StreetComplete is a great tool and I use it most days, but it's just this one quest which isn't a really good for for how things work (or don't) in the UK.

* Added house numbers from out of copyright OS maps, specifically NLS - OS 1:1,250/1:2,500 National Grid maps, 1947-1963

As @Badr_Bni has replied but not explained the purpose of their changeset, reversion and a reminder of the import guidelines seems appropriate.

osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

You appear to have tagged a section of the A46 North of Park Hill Lane 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.

@matt_ellery Thanks.

If the signage at the bus station entrance is unchanged from that in the Bing street side imagery (no entry except local buses), the access tags should probably be:

vehicle=no + bus=designated + emergency=yes

It shouldn't have motor_vehicle=yes or bicycle=yes tags, as both are explicitly forbidden by that sign.

https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=51.062492%7E-0.333052&lvl=19.5&mo=om.1&pi=1.2&style=x&dir=30.2

A parking aisle is a road in the OSM sense, so instead of deleting a feature which clearly does exist, it should be tagged correctly. See service=parking_aisle

I have added the car park and tagged both car park and parking aisle as private in changeset/151723739

Hi, thanks for adding bus=yes here, although the psv=yes which was already present should cover both buses and taxis. I've added taxi=yes for added clarity.

Unusually for a traffic restriction in Newham, motor_vehicle=permit applies as the original experimental traffic order granted an exemption for holders of A1 access permits, granted to local residents. I've changed it to motor_vehicle=private + private=residents and added a source tag pointing to the traffic order.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3347560

Please could you explain what this continent-spanning changeset is about.

Please also supply a meaningful changeset comment for future updates and limit your edits to a smaller area.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets