How does adding a fictitious weight limit improve anything?

(Review requested)

Thanks for spotting this.

The outer member of the Eden Dock multipolygon shouldn't have add any tags, which was my error in an earlier edit. Fixed in changeset/166903540

If it's private, you probably want access=private rather than access=no
access=*#List_of_possible_values

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your business.

I've changed it from shop=supermarket to shop=trade + trade=building_supplies, which seems to be the best fit currently available in OSM. The documentation for this is at:
shop=trade

(Review requested)

You might consider splitting addr:housename="8 Quadrum Park" into either:

addr:unit=8
addr:housename=Quadrum Park

or

addr:housenumber=8
addr:substreet=Quadrum Park

See osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom

Candidates for CMI and CIPD membership might expect any reasonable reading of their codes of practice to preclude advertising methods which are the digital equivalent of fly posting over a street sign.

Thanks for confirming, restored in changeset/166690175

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I can see from your website that you operate from 84 Strathville Road, but what your edit has inadvertently done is to remove the building from the map.

If your company premises occupy the whole building, then you might want to add something like office=company and/or an appropriate value of craft=*, together with tags for contact details and website. This lets data consumers know what sort of map feature you are, as they won't see your website address in the changeset comment.

If the business occupies only part of the building, it might be better to map it as a separate node (point).

I've added links to the documentation for the tags below, but if you'd like any help please reply below.

osm.wiki/Tag%3Aoffice%3Dcompany
craft=*

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

If you wanted to add the gates as well, you could add nodes (points) with the tags barrier=gate + foot=private + locked=yes. It's not absolutely necessary to add them and the tags you added will work on their own, so feel free to ignore this suggestion.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your business.

Do you occupy the whole building on the corner of Tooting High Street and Garratt Lane, or the ground floor unit between Halifax and JJ Moon's (I think this may have been Rozu Restaurant previously, based on FHRS data)?

You have also moved the tags of a hump on Crimscott Street to the entrance of Bridewain Street.

1) Has the speed hump on Crimscott Street been removed?

2) Has the row of concrete bollards acting as a modal filter on Bridewain Street been supplemented by a speed hump?

The ref:GB:tflcid=RWG079969 tag applies only to one surveyed feature in one location, which is clearly not on Bridewain Street.
https://cycleassetimages.data.tfl.gov.uk/RWG079969_1.jpg
https://cycleassetimages.data.tfl.gov.uk/RWG079969_2.jpg

(Review requested)

Although the web-based iD editor which you're using presents several access options as if they ought to be completed, a way (line) tagged as highway=footway implies foot=yes and (everything else)=no. You only really need to add access tags where they differ from the defaults, which in the UK are listed here:
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

Thanks! With all the 20mph zone boundary signs confirmed, I've added the speed limit tags for the whole zone in changeset/166465132

Has the car park in West Harrow Recreation Ground formerly(?) accessed from Wilson Gardens/Butler Road also been removed? You have deleted its access road in this changeset.

You seem to have dragged an artwork in Kensington Gardens, London, UK out of place in this changeset.

node/12110214885

With Eden Dock Bridge now open, should access=no be replaced with foot=permissive ?

Why replace direction=* (understood by all data consumers) with traffic_sign:direction=*, an iD-ism introduced in 2018?

traffic_sign=*

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Although adding bicycle=no on the N-S highway=footway does no harm, it doesn't actually do anything either as it's implcit.
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

For the E-W highway=cycleway, if cycling is not permitted, you should probably change the highway type. Looking at the Bing street side imagery it seems to be wide enough for service vehicles and has a removable bollard, so perhaps:
highway=pedestrian + vehicle=private

No problem, hopefully the above was helpful.

There is a reverter plugin which you can add to the JOSM editor you're using - see osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Reverter
I've reverted this one in changeset/166185155

(Review requested)

The deleted "pavement" was a separately mapped cycleway, originally added from DfT data in 2013.

In general, deleting another mapper's work should only really be done if the feature doesn't exist, or no longer exists. However, from the Bing aerial and street side imagery, it looks like the asphalt pavement on the W side was incorrectly added as a separate cycle track. This should have been the explicitly shared pavement/cycle track paved with red bricks on the E side. I would be inclined to map the E side as a separate way, as it joins Chadwick Road at a different point to the carriageway of George Raymond Road and is clearly a continuation of the shared cycle track through Pirelli Park.

If you don't want to do that, the segment of George Raymond Road between Chadwick Road and Pirelli Park should be tagged with:

cycleway:left=track
cycleway:left:oneway=no
cycleway:right=no
sidewalk:left:surface=paving_stones
sidewalk:right:surface=asphalt

https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=50.967263%7E-1.363876&lvl=20.3&mo=om.1&pi=-12.6&style=x&dir=10.3