I also frequently add bicycle=yes (and foot=yes where there aren't separately mapped sidewalks) on London's "trunk" roads. I'd be happier if some routers actually paid more attention to the other tags, particularly low maxspeed=* values and the absence of expressway=*/motorroad=*, but until then...

On public bridleways, please do add tags! Generally they should have designation=public_bridleway + horse=designated + bicycle=designated + foot=designated. You're probably already aware of them, but Robert Whittaker's PRoW resources can be very helpful.
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/

Updated to the actual, signed, restriction on Ashford Road at its junction with Scotforth Road.

A 3.5m width restriction on a 2 lane slip road from a trunk road to a primary road roundabout? Do you have a link to street side imagery showing the TSRGD diagram 629A sign?

Why have you replaced correct tagging with a non-existent maximum actual weight restriction?

The signs on Bulk Road at its junction with Catton Road are TSRGD diagram 622.1A (Goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross weight indicated prohibited), with an "Except loading" plate. This should be tagged as:
maxweightrating:hgv=7.5
maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=none @ delivery

It does not help data consumers to add an incorrect maxweight=* tag, or to conflate exceptions for delivery (loading) and destination (access).

Who, or what, is #OptimoRoute? If this is an organised edit on behalf of a company, there are additional guidelines to follow:
osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Guidelines

It's very unlikely that the restriction here is maxweight=*, unless it's for a weak bridge or weak road and had traffic signs which are pre-1994.

As this changeset and others have a comment about truck restrictions, the tagging you need is almost certainly maxweightrating:hgv=* + maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=*

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/maxweight-meaning-and-maxweightrating/132190/9

Looking at wandrer.earth's rules, the highway types mentioned in my first paragraph (primary, secondary, tertiary, unclassified, residential) aren't in their list of types which require an explicit bicycle=yes|designated tag:
"If they don't have an allowed bicycle tag, ways with the following highway tags are removed: motorway, motorway_link, steps, stairs, escalator, elevator, construction, proposed, demolished, escape, bus_guideway, sidewalk, crossing, bus_stop, traffic_signals, stop, give_way, milestone, platform, speed_camera, elevator, raceway, rest_area, traffic_island, services, yes, no, drain, street_lamp, razed, corridor, busway, via_ferrata"

While it does no harm to add bicycle=yes to the primary, secondary and tertiary roads in this changeset, if wandrer.earth excluded those roads the problem may lie elsewhere.

I won't remove the tags, although there's no guarantee that someone else won't decide that they're redundant in the future.

Is there a sign explicitly referring to PSVs, as psv=yes seems unlikely? It's not a synonym for bus=yes or bus=yes + taxi=yes.

Why do you think this is an error? Has Hutfield Link now been closed to buses and the bus stops suspended? If not, OSM-based routing for buses will not work through the lift gates.

Thanks for adding this footpath.

If you're trying to improve the mapping of public rights of way in your area, you might find this resource useful:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/swale/swale-rural/

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You don't actually need to add bicycle=yes to normal roads (highway types primary, secondary, tertiary, unclassified and residential), as the implicit access in OSM is to allow all transport modes. Also, bicycles and pedestrians use highways in the UK by absolute right unless explicitly prohibited (requiring traffic orders and signs).

On highway=trunk roads it shouldn't be necessary to add bicycle=yes + foot=yes, but sometimes it's needed because some broken routers assume that all trunk roads are high speed motorway-style infrastructure.

The usual tagging for a public bridleway is horse=designated + bicycle=designated + foot=designated

For the private track, you probably want access=private. There is also ownership=private for unadopted roads which are not gated.

osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

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

Sorry, I see you've already fixed it.

Are you sure that this is surface=unpaved?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding these.

If you want to map a new (presumably residential) building as a point because the aerial imagery hasn't caught up yet, you might want to use something like:
building=residential
addr:housename=Naymar Court
addr:postcode=NW10 7SR

This will help data consumers understand what you've added.

If you'd like any help, please feel free to ask.

Deleted in changeset/169719813

Hi,

I see that, although you're an armchair mapper apparently based in Saskatoon, CA, that you have added a footway in Homerton, London, GB.

This footway is entirely decorative: it does not connect to any other highways and it does not capture any of the physical properties of the sidewalks on Tilehurst Street, Ashenden Road, Adley Street and Marsh Hill. It is at best useless for pedestrian and related applications for people who actually live here.

I'm afraid that you will come across a lot of inconsistencies around bus infrastructure. A lot of it was mapped a long time ago and some access tags and tags expressing other traffic restrictions in OSM have evolved since then.

As an example of that, if bus routing software trusted the maxweight=* tag, you'd have added headaches - there are over 15,000 of them in the UK, almost all of which should be maxweightrating=* (bridges and weak roads) or maxweightraing:hgv=* (mostly residential streets).

Thanks for adding these, but please bear in mind that OpenStreetMap's default units are metric, so a maxspeed without a unit is in kilometres per hour. Imperial units need to be specified, e.g. 30 mph, 12'6", etc.

See:
maxspeed=*
maxspeed:type=*#United_Kingdom

I've fixed this in
changeset/169662189

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