Thanks. If it's a private (unadopted) road, you could also add ownership=private

ownership=private

Thank you!

I think the problem may be the way in which RapiD is trying to synchronise the tagging of crossing nodes and ways. Unfortunately, it seems to be giving precedence to the tagging on the way over tagging on the node. I'll take a proper look later on and raise an issue on the RapiD project on Github if that's the case.

Please don't change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked (yes, I know RapiD suggests it, it's wrong). Removing this information is very unhelpful for pedestrian navigation.

Please stop mis-tagging signalised crossings as crossing=uncontrolled

The crossing represented by node/33408745 is between two traffic lights. It's definitely controlled (that's what the traffic lights are for) and is now correctly tagged as crossing=traffic_signals

node/33408745

Vandalism reverted.

I'm not sure why you deleted node/8090874377

node/8090874377/history

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I am not sure why you deleted the traffic signal node before the pedestrian crossing on Pall Mall East, but I have reverted your edit in changeset/158385883

What were you trying to do?

OSM does not route anyone anywhere, that is done by third party routing software. Unless there is a real legal prohibition on using the ford, access=no and the other similar tags which you have added are incorrect and should be removed. Access tags reflect the legal position, not personal opinions on suitability for a mode of transport.

Adding flood_prone=yes seems quite reasonable.

You could also consider adding hazard=flooding and possibly depth, see:
osm.wiki/Tag%3Ahazard%3Dflooding
ford=yes

It can take time for routing software to update from OSM data - what are you using?

I think using dismount would potentially exclude people using a cycle as a mobility aid, or using a cycling profile in a router.

Perhaps something like bicycle=permissive + maxspeed:bicycle=walk + note=* might cover it?
maxspeed=*

As @8329 has not responded after 3 weeks, I have reverted this in changeset/158202605

Thanks. They probably ought to be changed back to highway=service rather than the highway=unclassified another mapper used as well.

(Review requested)

That looks OK, but you might also want to split the service road at the gate and add access=private to the section behind the gate.

If appropriate, you could also add locked=yes to the gate.
locked=*

This is an improvement, but please do not put barrier=kerb nodes on footway=sidewalk ways, as this will seriously impede routing for wheelchair users.

From the wiki:
"Please do not add a barrier=kerb on a node joining the footways near the crossing (e.g. sidewalk footway joining with footway crossing the road). That would implicate that such kerbs block not only crossing the road, but also just using the sidewalk (i.e. without intending to cross the road), which is almost never the case - and which has a big implication for several classes of users (most notably, wheelchair users)."
barrier=kerb#On_a_node

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

I think it might be better tagged as something like landuse=recreation_ground + sport=cricket rather than as leisure=park.

landuse=recreation_ground

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this. I visited this last week on a black history running tour and meant to check afterwards if it had been mapped.

The crossing you tagged as crossing:markings=dashes is an unmarked crossing. The markings next to it are give way road markings and are completely unrelated to the crossing. Pedestrian crossings over public highways in the UK are not marked with dashes.

If you don't understand what you're mapping, please don't map it.

node/12248181792

Please do not change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked

When I mapped node/5605100328, I knew what I was doing. Remember: experienced local mappers know more than you do.

node/5605100328/history

Please don't tag for the renderer.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

You changed a crossing=traffic_signals node to crossing=uncontrolled. WHY?

I'd noticed - and thanks!

I somehow missed parking:*:zone=* when I added parking tags here. Eventually I'll get around to adding it for the local CPZs, as it should make adding parking:*:conditional=* rules consistently a bit easier.

I was also thinking of changing the parking=lane polygons which I added to the undocumented area:highway=parking and moving the parking tags back to the parent highway where routing software can see them.