You described it as an error in your changeset comment, which it clearly wasn't. Did you at least flag the account?

It wasn't an "error", it was vandalism. Reported to DWG.

Grow up.

Not so much unmarked, as entirely fictitious and unhelpful to pedestrian routing in some cases.

Thanks!

For an overgrown path, it might be worth adding an obstacle=vegetation tag obstacle=*

@jpennycook thanks for spotting that! I've updated the access tags and added the signage in changeset/156953892

Thanks for spotting that!

When a road has separately mapped cycleways or sidewalks, it's better to replace (in this case) cycleway:right=track with cycleway:right=separate.

The mapper who originally added the separate cycle track should have updated the tagging on Pevensey Road, Dittons Road and Station Road at the same time. I've updated it.

cycleway=separate

Looking at the traffic orders in The Gazette, there's an exemption for "maintenance, refuse and other essential vehicles", so it should probably be:
1) vehicle=private + bus=designated + bicycle=designated
2) access=private + bus=designated + bicycle=designated

I suspect the "no through route" signs are intended to stop council vehicles using the road as a short cut, rather than being directed at the general public.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2769434

The signage here is a little inconsistent, but that looks OK to me.

Assuming the available imagery is still current:

1) Entering from Boundary Lane: no entry sign with "except buses and cycles" on the left and "no through route except for buses and cycles on the right". A no entry sign should be interpreted as vehicle=no, with bus=designated + bicycle=designated exceptions. "No through route" would usually mean access=destination, but that doesn't really make sense with a no entry sign and the plate on the right isn't an authorised variant. Bing street side imagery of uncertain date.
https://www.bing.com/maps/?toWww=1&redig=5D8227B414074D5485818F590B616E23&cp=51.52195%7E0.039991&lvl=19.1&mo=om.1&pi=-19&style=x&dir=219.5

2) Exiting toward Boundary Lane: bus and cycle only blue sign, with a separate white "no through route except for buses and cycles" sign before it. I think the white sign can be ignored for practical purposes, so it should probably be access=no + bus=designated + bicycle=designated here. If there weren't' separately mapped sidewalks here, foot=yes might be needed. Mapillary imagery from Jan 2024.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=390804306768746

You appear to have tagged sections of the High Street/Steyne Road 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. It is disabled in the UK from StreetComplete v59.0 onwards.

Thanks for adding these crossings. In the UK, a crossing marked with dots and adjacent to a highway=traffic_signals node should be tagged as crossing=traffic_signals.

With appropriate tagging on these crossings, users of apps like StreetComplete will be able to check for accessibility features like sound and tactile signals.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for editing the map.

Usually addresses are stored in separate tags, which are easier for data consumers like routing software to process.

The person who initially mapped the buildings on the Newlands Estate put all the information into the name tag, which I have now "translated" into OSM tags. You didn't do anything wrong by following the existing mapping style with your edit.

I've also added some other information, like postcodes, to buildings and roads on the estate.

If you want to add more information to the map in your local area, the StreetComplete app is a great complement to the iD web editor which you used.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

Rather than adding the tag to Finsbury Street, this should really be mapped as a node (point) on the outline of the 20 Ropemaker Street building. You can connect it to Finsbury Street by adding a short length of service road.

There is a link to the wiki page for amenity=loading_dock below, but if you would like any help please feel free to ask.

amenity=loading%20dock

Access updated in changeset/156825989

For a bus station, you might want something more like:

vehicle=no + bus=designated

rather than psv=yes, as it's more specific and excludes taxi/PHV using non-UK specific routers.

The existing motor_vehicle=designated tag (not added by you) is almost certainly wrong and should be deleted. I think the person who added it mistakenly thought that it meant "for designated vehicles only", but what it actually means is "designated as a right of way for all motor vehicles".

I can't find any street-level imagery, but if the sign at the entrance from Station approach is no entry with an "except buses" plate, the above should work. If it's something different I'll try to help you to find the best tagging here.

I have also added a section to the Busmiles.uk page on the OSM wiki.
osm.wiki/Busmiles.uk#Tagging_service_roads_in_bus_stations

PRoW data and mapping progress for Eastry Rural is at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/dover/eastry-rural/

No, it's clearly designated as a public bridleway and was tagged as such. What you would like it to be is immaterial.

Please familiarise yourself with access rights on public rights of way in England and how they are tagged in OpenStreetMap before editing any more PRoWs.
osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging

I have reverted your edit and changed it from highway=path -> bridleway

The sidewalk:both=separate tag goes on the parent street, not on the sidewalk. Your tagging effectively meant that the separately mapped sidewalks had separate sidewalks on both sides. I've fixed your mistake.

If you persist in making bad edits in East London and do not engage with changeset comments, the matter will be escalated to DWG.

Please don't add tag for the router/renderer.

As someone who actually lives in East London and uses OSM-based pedestrian routing software, armchair mappers adding decorative sidewalks and pretend crossings is unhelpful.