Vandalising OSM by adding fictitious weight restrictions isn't "improving [the] street network for routing".

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for contributing.

Where you have the individual pitches of Watford (Cassiobury) Croquet Club, these don't really need name=* tags, as they're enclosed by another polygon representing the whole club,
way/1073959280

The enclosing polygon should was incorrectly tagged by another mapper as leisure=pitch and should actually be leisure=sports_centre + club=sport

See leisure=sports_centre

This is only a minor issue and there isn't anything in your edit which would be likely to cause problems for data consumers.

Vandalising OSM by adding fictitious weight restrictions isn't "improving [the] street network for routing".

Adding unsigned weight limits without a source isn't an "improvement".

I see that you have added two sidewalk rings around St Stephen's Road/Athelstane Grove/Selwyn Road/Antill Road and St Stephen's Road/Antill Road/Coborn Road/Tredegar Road. Apart from the short section between the zebra crossing N of the junction of St Stephen's Road and Tredegar Road and the crossing of Antill Road at its junction with St Stephen's Road, these are not connected to anything else via crossings and are at best utterly useless for pedestrian routing. Unless you intend to connect these decorative sidewalks at other crossings, the useless parts should be removed. MapRoulette challenges are all very well, but people who actually live in London prefer working pedestrian navigation over tickbox exercises.

I'm getting very tired of removing your fictitious "improvements".

Do you have any evidence that horses are legally prohibited in the Rotherhithe Tunnel? Your changeset does not provide a source and I cannot see a TSRGD diagram 622.6 sign (Ridden or accompanied horses prohibited) at either end on Bing's street side imagery.

How can a public bridleway have horse=private + bicycle=private? If your access tagging is correct, it's a footpath, not a bridleway.

way/374455218

Access tags in OSM reflect real and verifiable legal restrictions, not subjective opinions. Already reverted by another user.

Could you explain why you think that motor_vehicle=permissive applies to the A101 Rotherhithe Tunnel? As far as I can tell, it's a highway maintainable at public expense operated by TfL, which would be an implicit motor_vehicle=yes

Thanks.

* from junctions with The Highway, not Commercial Road

Adding fictitious weight limits is vandalism, not an improvement

If you want to tag "designated [motor] vehicles are permitted to use this road", it's motor_vehicle=private

The meaning of motor_vehicle=designated is "ALL motor vehicles use this road as a legal right".

Thanks for adding these, but please note that the access tags should be:
vehicle=private + bus=yes

The psv=yes tag is unnecessary abd almost certainly incorrect, as PSV is not an exact synonym for bus/bus+taxi in the UK. While signs and traffic orders restricting or prohibiting PSV access exist, tis is not the case for explicit permission.

The motor_vehicle=designated tag is wrong. The value "designated" does not mean "for designated vehicles only", but "designated for use by ALL motor vehicles as a legal right". The former situation is described by the "private" access value.

Where there is a bus bay which is not physically separated from the main carriageway, the carriageway can be split and the tag bus_bay=left|right added to the appropriate section.

See osm.wiki/Busmiles.uk

Updated in changeset/168966946

I see that you have mapped traffic lanes on several sections of road in this area as separate ways, which is usually only correct where there is physical carriageway separation over an extended distance. We have tags like lanes=* + lanes:forward=* + lanes:backward=* + turn:lanes to describe the characteristics of the carriageway.

See e.g. osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

Unless pedestrian access is explicitly prohibited with a traffic sign and associated traffic order, it is not illegal to walk on any public road in the UK. Access tags in OSM reflect the legal position, not an opinion on whether or not it might be safe or a good idea.

access=*
osm.wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#625.1

What issue do you believe changing the correct tagging of highway=footway to the less specific highway=path fixed?

Removing the highway=trunk tag from part of the Westbound carriageway of the A232 Barclay Road doesn't strike me as being particularly professional. If this hadn't been fixed promptly, it would have caused problems for OSM-based routing software.
changeset/168784365

This should actually be tagged crossing:markings=zebra;dots

The dots (TSRGD diagram 1055.1) are a non-mandatory part of the crossing markings with relevance to pedestrians using the crossings.

The dashes (TSRGD diagram 1001.5) are give way markings specific to zebra and parallel crossings. I am not aware of them being mapped separately and adding them as highway=give_way nodes might confuse routing software.

See:
crossing:markings=*#Examples
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14#tgp3-tbl3-tbd1-tr52

This cycle track probably shouldn't have foot=no (or any other value of foot=*) set on it, as there isn't a TSRGD diagram 955 sign (Route for use by pedal cycles and electric scooters being used in a trial, only) where it separates from the carriageway heading WSW. There's no pedestrian prohibition in place, although sane routing software will send pedestrians via the separate footbridge on the other side f the carriageway.