(Review requested)

That looks fine, thanks for updating it.

Vandalising OSM by adding entirely fictitious and legally implausible weight restrictions does not "improve" anything.

Liar.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

If your business is only on the 3rd floor of Nena House, it would be better to add it as either a node (point), with the additional tags level=3 and addr:floor=3rd Floor.

As it stands, you have overwritten tags which apply to the building as a whole.

If you need any help with this, please feel free to ask.

Hi,

If this is local to you, please could you confirm whether there is any signed weight restriction on this road?

It was tagged by another user with maxweight=10, which is incorrect and legally implausible (UK signage can restrict maxweightrating, not maxweight), but I don't want to simply remove it in case there is a real maximum gross weight limit for HGVs or over the bridge.

* changing to highway=footway renders it invisible in OSM Carto.

Please could you point me to the wiki page where it says that they value of highway=* should be determined by Highway Code Rules H1-H3?

Tagging as highway=cycleway does not imply anything about who has priority, but it does render a cycleway invisible on OSM Carto.

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

The path is shown on the map as having restricted access (grey rather than red) and has been correctly tagged with foot=private since May 2022. It is somewhat unlikely that unauthorised users are attempting to use the path as a short cut due to its inclusion in OpenStreetMap.

As it is clearly visible in aerial imagery, the most likely result of deleting it would have been someone else adding it back from the aerial imagery alone, but without any access restriction.

For further information, please see:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
and
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Reverted in changeset/167096775

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

(Review requested)

Thanks for adding this. It might be better to use access=private rather than access=no here - see access=*#List_of_possible_values

If you wanted, you could also split the road at the gate and add access=private to the section behind it.

The military area itself might benefit from a hazard=unexploded_ordnance or hazard=shooting_range tag (see hazard=* ) if you're confident that the warning on the gate applies to the whole area.

Maybe, but it's definitely not an A road with green primary route signage. B roads are tagged as highway=secondary

The tagging for NSL on a single carriageway is:
maxspeed=60 mph
maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single

Reverted in changeset/166946351

I'm pretty sure that no part of Kiln Lane or the B4440 are highway=trunk. None of them is an A road with green primary route signage, which is what this tag means in the UK.

Please read and ensure that you have understood the documentation before changing any other highway tags.
osm.wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom

Reverted in changeset/166946284

Vandalism, in this case by adding a fictitious weight restriction, doesn't improve routing.