You've marked these crossings as not having tactile paving, although it's abundantly clear from the aerial imagery that it is present (it's buff blister paving, used at uncontrolled crossings in the UK).

Recording this data accurately is important for visually impaired users of OSM. Don't guess and don't make things up.

Don't add non-existent fords, or blindly accept the first suggestion which makes editor warnings go away. It's unlikely that Princess Street would ford the River Medlock, not least because of the ~5 metre difference in height between the road surface and the water. In fact, fords on main roads in city centres in the UK are very unlikely.

Someone else has already fixed this. They shouldn't have needed to. OSM data is used by real people, this isn't just a box-ticking exercise in the tasking manager you've been playing with.

Now fixed, with the footway split and tagged as a bridge, which is what you should have done had you need prioritised hiding an editor warning over actually trying to get it right.

Hi, I see that you added some obviously fake fords to hide an editor warning, instead of actually attempting to fix the problem. Adding fiction to the map so that you can pretend that you're doing something useful is really unhelpful. Instead of helping pedestrian routing, pedestrians may have been sent the long way around in order to avoid fords which aren't there.

Hi, I see you added crossings at the intersection of Princess Street and Charles Street as unmarked crossings. As they are obviously signal controlled crossings and marked, I was wondering why you chose to do this. The purpose of this task is supposedly to improve pedestrian navigation, but adding incomplete and incorrect information in order to tick a box in a tasking manager isn't even useless, it's actually detrimental.

Every other London stadium appears to have kept its real name, so I've reverted in changeset/170421897

Your 3D mapping is very impressive. I played about with it for a bit, but lost interest after Streets GL went from using live data to a never updated planet download.

I'd be happier if my team's stadium kept its original name, too. Unfortunately, what is displayed in fixture lists is the official name. If you're confident that Nominatim recognises official_name=*, feel free to revert this.

You inadvertently dragged part of the building at 25 Gresham Street out of position - fixed in changeset/170412838

Please could you point me to the community guidelines which recommend re-tagging an unmarked crossing as crossing=uncontrolled?

I don't think motor vehicle=designated is what you intended here: do ALL motor vehicles really have a legal right to drive here?

Thanks. I'll leave that alone, in case any data consumers are using it.

I've seen a few instances of people using motor_vehicle=designated to represent "for designated vehicles only", which is actually likely to be motor_vehicle=private

Adding fake height restrictions doesn't improve the street network. If you had never edited OSM, *that* would at least have not maliciously degraded routing.

I noticed a way from this changeset with note="rule line" under Victoria Coach station. Is this safe to delete?

way/163793013

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I see that you've created a long unclassified highway around streets which have already been mapped, what is this intended to be?
way/1421503235

Also, "See Appendix 5 Mapping" - of what? And does it have a licence compatible with OSM?
osm.wiki/Copyright

Please don't use the live OpenStreetMap database for testing.

I realise that this is a changeset from 12 years ago, but is there any reason we really need motor_vehicle=designated on these roads? I think that's implicit on every public road which doesn't have explicitly signed restrictions.

The weight restriction signs in this area indicate that buses and HGVs over 7.5t are prohibited on Ranelagh Bridge, not the Westbourne Terrace bridge. In the context of many of your other edits, this looks like another instance deliberate vandalism. The question remains, why were you so keen to sabotage OSM in 2015?

Thanks. I've added some address details from FHRS
osm.wiki/UK_Food_Hygiene_Rating_Scheme

Is the neighbouring Sainsbury's branch to the SE now closed? If it is, you could use lifecycle prefixes on some of its tags
osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

No problem.

There are a few places like this where we have normal cycle route signage, but which go across private land. Although it's unlikely the landowners would just revoke access, they could lock the gates without needing a traffic order and users wouldn't have any recourse.

At the other end of The Greenway, the road works on High Street have a TTRO (temporary traffic regulation order), but as far as I can tell the related closure on The Greenway itself doesn't.

If that's an ungated private service road on an industrial estate, you might be better off with access=destination (no need for foot or bicycle tags) and ownership=private. That way, routing software will know that business premises on that road are reachable for deliveries etc., but that the road is not a public right of way.