Hi, thanks for editing OpenStreetMap.

There's an example of a gold postbox here, which might give you some ideas of how to tag it:
node/4987926604

The separate sidewalks which you added in this and probably other nearby changesets were arbitrarily deleted by @Derick Rethans (with the spurious justification that they are "fictitious") in changeset/155281608

I feel that these deletions should be reverted, a it is at best tagging for the renderer and at worst vandalism.

I have opened a discussion about this at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/undiscussed-mass-deletion-of-separate-sidewalks/117491

Please don't add fictitious values for road surfaces - public highways in Greater London are extremely unlikely to be fine_gravel.

Should the grass running track at Bushey Meads School be tagged with access=private?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding these trees.

In general, the name tag is only used for trees with their own name, e.g. Major Oak in Sherwood Forest ( node/455984558 )

To add the type of tree, you can use tags like species:en (for the common English name) and species (if known). If you would like any help with this, please let me know.

species:en=*
species=*

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/undiscussed-mass-deletion-of-separate-sidewalks/117491

Fictional?! The footways exist and at least on All Souls Avenue are useful for pedestrian routing.

I spent a great deal of time fixing the decorative sidewalks added by @alisonlung and removing most of them. I did not do that in order for them to be arbitrarily deleted with your spurious justification.

Please revert and discuss your unilateral decision to deprecate separate footpaths in the community forums or Talk-GB.

For the boardwalks, adding bridge=boardwalk might be useful, if the description in the documentation corresponds to the situation on the ground.

bridge=boardwalk

Hi,

Thanks for updating your business address on OpenStreetMap.

I've made a couple of minor tweaks to your last two edits in changeset/155278082
and
changeset/155278168

When you edit OSM, you're editing the live database, rather than submitting an edit for approval.

You can't use Google Maps or other copyrighted material as a source, unless they have a licence which is compatible with OpenStreetMap.

The Google Maps Terms of Use explicitly forbid using Google Maps content - both map data and Google Street View - for making any other content. It includes using them for OSM mapping.
osm.wiki/Google

You can't use Google Maps or other copyrighted material as a source, unless they have a licence which is compatible with OpenStreetMap.

The Google Maps Terms of Use explicitly forbid using Google Maps content - both map data and Google Street View - for making any other content. It includes using them for OSM mapping.
osm.wiki/Google

The fixme says "Area is approximate - details to be clarified". It's a bit of a stretch to get from that to the area being "... land which was previously developed which is not currently in use. Brownfield land may be vacant or scheduled for future development."

The way you edited is actually part of a correctlt tagged landuse=residential multipolygon, relation/12286304

I've reverted your edit.

You can read the documentation on landuse=residential and landuse=brownfield here:
landuse=residential
landuse=brownfield

Please stop mistagging short-term temporary closures like this. A temporary restriction can be implemented using a conditional restriction.

osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions

You have been asked not to do this on multiple occasions in the past, yet have chosen to damage the OpenStreetMap database for your own convenience and cannot pretend ignorance.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/3

In that case, the tagging you needed was access=private

Please do not add incorrect information to OpenStreetMap in an attempt to fix problems with an unspecified and probably buggy router.

They are service roads, not paths and there is clearly (private) access for motor vehicles as the aerial imagery shows.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Fixed in
changeset/154895218

Might it be better to use proposed:railway=rail rather than railway=proposed for this?

Also, is there an OpenStreetMap licence-compatible source for this proposal?

Also garden:type=residential

garden:type=residential

I'm absolutely certain that it isn't. The exception plate on the no entry sign says "except buses". The wider category of PSVs is not allowed.

For residential gardens, you might find that leisure=garden + garden:type=residential + access=private works better than landuse=grass.

If you're going to micromap planted areas in private gardens, landuse=flowerbed (rendered in Carto) or natural=shrubbery (not currently rendered) are better than natural=scrub.

leisure=garden
landuse=flowerbed
natural=shrubbery

They didn't take the hint.

If the ramp is still physically present, it was perfectly fine as it was, tagged with access=no.