I am aware that it's 3 years old, but spotted the detached sidewalk on Tudor Road while fixing a typo in a postcode raised by a QA tool.

a) I don't know of any routers which can plot routes which leap between adjacent highway ways, even if the parent highways were tagged with sidewalk:$side=separate. Hopefully routers will ignore the sidewalks, otherwise pedestrians are sent on very circuitous routes. If they don't work for routing and the parent highways don't have sidewalk tags, is this really anything more than tagging for the renderer.

b) No. Doing it properly, which includes noting the crossing type and accessibility features like lowered kerbs and tactile paving. That can't be done without either good street side imagery (not available off main roads here) or a site survey.

An example of what decorative sidewalks does for pedestrian routing is when you ask OSRM, Graphhopper, or Valhalla to take you from 63 Phillip Road to 11 Ilex Road. Without separate sidewalks, the route is a effectively a dot. With them as mapped, it's over half a kilometre.
osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=51.088666%2C1.148702%3B51.088431%2C1.148482#map=19/51.089020/1.147656

Rather than adding decorative sidewalks to residential streets without crossings, just surveying and adding sidewalk=* might be more useful.

The one on the South side of Tudor Road is at least harmless, since it is not connected to other highways. Others are actually detrimental to pedestrian routing, as crossings are not mapped.

I don't really see the benefit to pedestrian navigation in general and VI navigation in particular from adding decorative sidewalks to residential streets without crossings.

Most of what you and @alisonlung added for #waymap-project-SB on minor roads has been or soon will be extirpated. The sidewalks added on main roads are being re-mapped in a less negligent way, at considerable cost in the time and effort of volunteer mappers.

You appear to have tagged two section of the Longbridge Road/Fanshawe Avenue/Barking Northern Relief Road circular junction 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 a section of the A406/A41 sliproad as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Mapillary imagery for evidence that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition beyond the bus stop and the end of the pavement. 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 several street section 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.

Please could you avoid copying tactile_paving=yes from the crossing node to the highway=footway + footway=crossing way?

From tactile_paving=*#Use_on_ways
"On a pedestrian crossing highway=crossing, when the tactile paving is used in a line all across the crossing. Do not use tactile_paving=* on the way when only the two spots where the footway ends are paved differently."

Where there is a short link between the sidewalk way and the crossing way and the tactile paving extends across the full width of the sidewalk, I have started adding it there.

See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2024-May/031331.html

I've seen and updated a few instances of this in Sussex. It might be worth a little edit to tourism=chalet, at least adding building=static_caravan to the "See Also" section.

Looking at that user's other edits, it's probably a DWG issue. I've flagged their account for vandalism.

How can you tell from aerial imagery that these are 36 storey apartment buildings, each containing only 6 flats?

There isn't exactly that, but building=ruins or building=yes + ruins=yes might work. Possibly building:levels=0 and height=0 might be better than using layer=-1 (which probably won't do anything). You could also add them as inner members of the surrounding natural=wood polygon, assuming that the concrete bases create small clearings in the woodland.

building=ruins
ruins=*

It might be worth asking for advice on the community forums, as hopefully other mappers have come across a similar problem before.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

In order for data consumers to find you and to display the correct icon on maps, you will need to remove the previous occupier's office=estate_agent tag and add amenity=dentist + healthcare=dentist

amenity=dentist
healthcare=dentist

Please don't add generic wikipedia and wikidata tags. These links should only be about the specific feature.

The tags on the Garrison Stadium tag were probably correct before you replaced them and have been restored.

way/92115342

I see. If it's closed to pedestrians as well and the closure looks like it will be long term, there are several ways you could do this.

1) Set access=no and remove the foot and bicycle tags

2) Change it to highway=construction + construction=cycleway

3) Use the disused:* lifecycle prefix, changing highway=cycleway to disused:highway=cycleway

Option 2 has the advantage that StreetComplete will periodically prompt users to check whether it has reopened.

Whichever you use, it is worth adding a note tag briefly describing the situation and a check_date tag.

Apologies, I see that you added the crossings in changeset/156206389

If you could also update the tags on the parent street from sidewalk=both to sidewalk:both=separate that also gives hints to data consumers.
osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way

How can a highway=cycleway have a prohibition for bicycles?

Has the toucan crossing here been replaced with another crossing type, and if so, what?
node/4860857576

Have these signs been removed and replaced?
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.532102%7E0.003973&lvl=20.2&mo=om.1&pi=-0.2&style=x&dir=347.5
https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/rskedgell?lat=51.4779829&lng=-0.0180406&z=18.20477552230186&pKey=1134111453754457&focus=photo

How will these benefit pedestrian routing, as they don't connect via crossings?

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

There is nothing wrong with place=village being a node. Please read the wiki before making arbitrary decisions on whether or not an object in OSM is "unnecessary".

place=village

Of the 15k place=village objects in the UK, about 99% are mapped as nodes. The reasons for this are in the wiki.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/place=village#overview

Please use meaningful changeset comments.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

If the business has gone permanently, you could delete the node for the POI and add the address to the polygon for the house which contained it.
way/1301684507