This "busway" has no physical separation from the A2 Chatham Hill and was already tagged correctly before @demisee added it (they have a tendency to map, very badly, for the renderer). If you wish to improve TomTom's routing, delete the pretend busway.

way/111202846

(Review requested)

Looks fine to me, thanks.

(Review requested)

Unfortunately you dragged a point on Harper Road out of position, which is why the editor warned you about crossing highways before you uploaded it.

Please also use a meaningful changeset comment and a real source - "あ" is inadequate.

Reverted.

(Review requested)

Unfortunately, you dragged the NW end of Collinson Walk so that it appeared to pass through two buildings and join Stones End Street near its junction with Great Suffolk Street. This is why the editor displayed warnings before you uploaded your edit.

Reverted in changeset/159643072

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for contributing to this project.

I would like to make a couple of suggestions which might further improve the mapping for pedestrian navigation:

1) For most sidewalks in central London should probably be tagged with surface=paving_stones - although the paving stones may be mode out of concrete, surface=concrete is generally used for a poured concrete surface. In this area, a concrete surface is generally used only for service roads and as a temporary measure during construction works.
surface=paving_stones

2) When you add a kerb node, please avoid putting it on the main line of the sidewalk. 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

Please see the other changeset comments about dual carriageways.

(Review requested)

Thanks for adding these and taking part in this project!

If I could make one suggestion, please could you avoid putting the kerb nodes on the sidewalks?

From barrier=kerb
"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)."

Most kerbs in central London are lowered or flush, so it's not quite as bad for wheelchair users as the wiki makes it sound, but it does mean that tactile paving nodes for the visually impaired might be in the wrong place.

Hi,

I know that Rapid suggests synchronising the tags between crossing ways and crossing nodes and unfortunately gives precedence to the tagging on the way. Please could you disregard this suggestion where it suggests degrading crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked? This is really unhelpful for pedestrian navigation (which rather defeats the object of this MwAI project) and also surveying of accessibility features with Street Complete.

Also, crossing:markings=dashes is almost always wrong for a pedestrian-only crossing on publicly maintained roads in the UK. The markings at signalised crossings are dots, per the wiki and UK traffic legislation (TSRGD diagram 1055.1).
crossing:markings=*#Values
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made#tgp3-tbl3-tbd1-tr55

Crossing tags repaired in changeset/159450035

Hi Tim. Thanks for fixing that. I think the bridleway might be better tagged as highway=bridleway rather than highway=path.

Sorry, reverted in changeset/159439095

If there is no physical separation between carriageways, don't add a fictitious separation on the map because you think it looks nicer.

Mini roundabouts are NOT roundabouts, do not map them as if they were. Different rules apply.

Please stop tagging mapping for the renderer. Reverted in 159430998

(Review requested)

Looks fine to me.

The proposed road layout is in OS Open USRN, so if you wanted you could even add the ones where construction hasn't yet started as proposed:highway=residential + ref:GB:usrn=*

Fictitious dual carriageways partially deleted by @yasslay in changeset/159316865

Hi, just a quick reminder that pedestrian-only crossings on public roads in the UK are not marked with dashes. If you see dashes next to a crossing of a side road, these are give way markings and are entirely separate from the crossing. Please feel free to add the highway=give_way node separately.

For example,
This is an unmarked crossing
node/11655924683/history
the dashes were already mapped as a highway=give_way node
node/12059557027

Fictitious separate bus stop highway way/1335597072 deleted. Please do not map for the renderer by adding separate highways where no physical separation exists.

If you wish to add a bus bay, you can do it by splitting the parent highway and adding a bus_bay tag.
bus_bay=*

Please stop mapping for the renderer. Deleting your fictitious carriageway splits at T-junctions is getting very tedious.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. There obviously isn't an enormous building here, but what were you trying to do?

You might find https://learnosm.org/ useful to get you started.

The building has already been deleted by another user in changeset/159324469

I'm fairly sure that Guildhall House hasn't suddenly ceased to be a building. Reverted.

Wide hatched areas are not adequate separation for a dual carriageway, which requires physical separation by a central reservation. This is the case both for OSM mapping and in law.

Even if this were really a dual carriageway, leaving the original way as a 2 lane road and adding a parallel road, neither of which are one way, would be seriously incorrect mapping.

Mapping for the renderer by adding non-existent separation and geometries is detrimental to OSM data consumers. Routing in this part of North Kent is becoming increasingly compromised, to the point that I would have to fall back to Google Maps.

Please ensure that you have read and understood the following before making further edits to major roads:
osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

Rochester Road is not a dual carriageway where there is no physical separation of the lanes by a central reservation.

In any case, what you have created here is not a dual carriageway, but two parallel roads with two way traffic.